The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1908-09-15
TAX COMMISSION REPORT
Continuation Of Report Submitted to
Gov. Proctor.

report of the commission on double
! taxation;
The Supreme court of this state in
Gotten v, City Of Montpelier, II VT,
AIS said:
IAN Interpretation of the constitu-
ton and bill OF rights, contemporary
eous with their adoption, practiced
and acquiesced In for such length
Of time as conclusively fixes their con-
struotion has Judicial determination
to the same effect.
This was said OF the legislatures
right TO exempt property from taxa
ton but the general right TO apportion
taxes and classify its subjects and
must be understood to exist unless ex-
pressly forbidden by the Contitution.
The legislature may classify the sub
jects of taxation.
. Kitty Roups Case 81 Pa. st., 216.
Zimmerman v. Turnpike Co. 81, Pa.
St. SO.
1T may adopt other classiiications
of prperty, imposing the tax upon
those various elassiacations or kinds
of property. imposing the tax upon
lily would be preserved"
Desty on Taxation, SO.
The constitution does not deprive
the legislature the power of divid-
ling the objects OF taxation into class
es; 1t merely requires that the burden
shall be equal upon all included in the
class.
To claim that the legislature may ex
emDt from all taxation all debts Sc.
Icured by mortgage, whether real or
chattel, where the rate of interest
does not exceed a certain per cent and
at the same time deny its power to tax
all that class of property at a uniform
rate seems TO us to be taking a pos
ition that is illogical and not tenable
in law
III the legislature has power to ex-
empto on account Of the special use to
which they are put, certain kinds of
property from the taxation to which
other property OF the same kind, but
lput TO general uses, Is subjected, 1t
has the right to provide, in its discre.
ton, that such special property shall
be assessed at different rate and in
, a different way from the other"
Central X. r. of n. Y. v. State 4 At
antic r., 5S4 court of Errors & Ap-
, lpeals. n. J.)
1T is impossible TO study the de.
, yelopment OF our law during two and
a half centuries, without reaching the
certain conclusion that the right of
. the people to tax themselves through
their representatives In the General
Assembly has always been held In
reverence and is distinctly secured
by the constitution; that the duty to
exercise the power OF taxation wisely
and only for the public good Is a leg
islative duty wisely and only for the
: public good is a legislative duty for
the performance OF which the General
Assembly is responsible to its constit-
. uency; that the power of considering
the conditions of population or prop
erty the theories and maxims of poll
tical economy or moral philosophy
which may effect taxation and, of de-
termining what on the whole is q wise
and fair mode of distributing the bur.
den, is a purely legislative power.
Such provisions are incompatible
with the existence in our state con-
stitution of any maxim of uniformity
and equality in taxation. to be defin-
, ed by the court and employed In con-
trolling the General Assembly in the
performance OF its legislative duties
and the exercise of It's legislative pow
; ers."
State v. Travellers ms. Co., 70 Conn
262.
When II is considered that many OF
the trainers of our state constitution
: came from Connecticut and much of
our law was taken from that state.
this opinion of its court of last resort
seems of especial force upon this
: Question.
This statement OF the lag by the
Connecticut Court was approved by
the Supreme court of the United
States in the same case, 1856 U. s.,
I 1854.
, 1t necessarily follows therefore that
! special forms of taxation adjusted TO
different classes of property are found
essential in the administration of
state taxing systems, and. in the abb
sence of specific constitutional restric
tons requiring all property to be tax.
ed according to thesame method of
assessment, are consistent with the
fundamental principles of equality and
uniformity inherent in taxation"
Judson on Taxation, Sec. 43S.
, Classification for taxation is not
necessarily based upon any essential
difference in the nature or condition
based as well upon the want of adap-
liability to the same methods OF taxa
ton, or upon the impracticability of
, applying TO the various subjects the
same methods so as to produce lust
/ ana uniform results, or 1t may be has.
ed on Just and well grounded consid.
erations of public policy"
Judson on Taxation. Sec 454.
me legislature shall provide for a
UNIFORM and equal rate of assessment
D and taxation"
e But under this limited power the
I supreme court of that state says
. The constitution does not require
uniformity of methods of taxation and
different methods may be adopted for
the taxation, of different classes OF
property"
e Gulf R. R. Co. Y. Morris, Z Kan,
8 210.
Commissioners of Ottawa Co. v.
Nelson, 10 Kan, 23I.
The constitution of Maryland prov.
des
Every person in the state. or per.
son holding property therein, ought
' TO contribute his proportion of public
I taxes for the support of government,
: according to this actual worth in real
or personal property"
( This provision imposes much greater
Limitations upon the legislature than
does Art 3 of our constitution, yet
Maryland has law fixing a uniform
: low rate upon intangible personal prop
h erty and its constitutionality does not
2 appear to have been questioned.