The San Francisco call., 1905-01-04
POWERS OF BOARD
OF EQUALIZATION
LIMITED BY COURT

In the equalization of assessments as
between counties, also. the new con-
stitution did not prove to be perfect
success. The Supreme Court stripped
the Board of Equalization of some OF
the powers which it had been supposed
that it possessed and which it at
tempted to exercise. 1t can raise or
lower county rolls only as a whole
and can not distinguish between diff
ferent classes of property although
one may have been assessed too high
and another too low. Yet the total as
sessed value of property in the State
has continued to increase slowly with
the growth in population and wealth,
but real estate and improvements bear
80 per cent of the burden. The total
assessed value of money and solvent
credits is only $4,000, ,00O which repre-
sents. of course, but small portion
of the true amount of this kind of
property in the State.
Since 1880 the constitution has been
often amended, but most of the amend
ments of the article upon taxation have
been in the direction of exemption.
Fruit trees and grapevines of a GER
tain age, household goods of the val
lie of hundred dollars, church build
ings, the property of several educa-
tional and scientific institutions, and
State and municipal bonds have been
relieved Of tax burdens. But while all
of these amendments taking property
off the assessment roll have been
adopted, there have been no amend
ments to put any on, nor has any
change been introduced in the consti-
tuition which would make the system
more elastic or give the Legislature
greater power over the subject mat
or11f nf
the constitution in SO far as it relates
to taxation; the system was finished
when the constitution was adopted;
1t has not been capable of growth. In
other States the Legislatures improve
the plan of taxation from time to time
as experience suggests changes; their
revenue laws as they stand have been
gradual evolution. But in California
no changes of Importance can be made
because of conflict with the constitu-
tional scheme.
In the convention which framed this
constitution there were a minority of
men who foresaw that scheme OF
taxation so rigid as this would not be
permanently satisfactory, and they
argued in favor Of vesting consid-
erable discretion in the Legislature.
One of those who took this view was
the eminent lawyer, Samuel M Will
son, one Of the master minds Of the
convention, although in this instance
his counsel was not followed. Mr..
Wilson, on one occasion, said:
Government is a complex piece of machinery
and runs only at great expense. The true
question then is this: What is the best sys-
tenn Of taxation for the support of the govern
ment? In every State in the Union, with the
exception Of the instances mentioned by the
gentlemen here, the matter of taxation is left
to legislative discretion, with only certain
PRINCIPLES guhinCt al vv1 in
the constitution. In some few States the con-
stitution fixes the objects and subjects OF taxa
lature. In most cases it Is left to the Legis-
lature to select the objects and subjects on
which taxes should be levied consistent with
the general principles of equality and uni.
formity-the tax being upon property and not
upon persons. The Legislature should have
thu this discretionary % power My individual opin-
scribe that all real estate and all tangible
property shall be taxed and that such taxa
Legislature should have, beyond that. the
power and discretion of imposing any other
tax that 1t might see fit, except a capitation
tax. Then the Legislature, in its discretion,
could enact stamp tax, tax upon incomes,
or a tax upon anything else according to the
necessities of the State at the time. That
mere elastic-in better condition and more
in accordance with the general principles pre-
vailing in all of the States of the Union.
And Mr.. Wilson added another valu-
able suggestion when he said:
1t is not necessary to equal and uniform
taxation that 1t should be universal.
It is worthy Of note that the States
in which the revenue laws are to-day
in the most satisfactory shape are
those in which there have been the
fewest constitutional restrictions upon
the power Of the Legislature, nor does
there appear to be any serious COM
plant that this power has been used
to discriminate unfairly against any
class of taxpayers. Experience and
reason alike justify the belief that
legislative control over the method of
levying taxes would no more be taken
advantage of to oppress or to destroy
than are the large powers in other
directions which the Legislature pos
sesses. No Legislature could afford, as
matter of mere political expediency,
to do injustice to such a large class
of persons, or important business in
terests, as 1T would do by adopting an
unjust tax law. 1t is striking fact
that 1t is in the States such as New
York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and
Ohio, in which the business interests
are strongest, that the most advanced
methods of taxing corporations have
been adopted and after business has
had little time to adjust itself to these
new forms of taxation, they excite no
great opposition.
EASTERN STATES