Custer weekly chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, S.D.) 1890-1931, 1910-11-05
SHOULD RETAIN TAX LIMITATION.
Those Who Have Studied the Proposed
Amendment to Article XII of the State
Constitution Say That II It Car
ries IL Will Remove
Tax Limitation.

| ries IL Will Remove
| Tax Limitation.
Before attempting to vote upon the
proposed laws and amendments which
are to be submitted to them at the cleo
ton on November Sth the voters of South
Dakota should thoroughly post them.
selves on the various propositions. 1t is
a source of surprise to many that the last
legislature should have submitted an
amendment to Article XI of our consti.
tuition, in view of the fact that similar
amendment was submitted to the voters
of South Dakota at the election two years
ago and was defeated by an overwhelm-
ing vote.
At present the legislature is limited to
two mill levy for state purposes, and
confessedly the purpose of the present
proposed amendment is to remove such
Limitation, making it possible for the
legislature to provide for levy of any
amount; and, in fact, inviting public
officers and the legislature to adopt a
course of extravaganza in the use and
expenditure Of the peoples money. The
only safeguard the people have ever had
against extravaganza and exorbitant
taxation is this constitutional limita-
ton, and if this be once removed the
people must thereafter be subject to the
will or caprice of various legislatures
and taxing authorities for all time to
come.
This Limitation is designed to be re-
moved in cunning manner, the propos-
ed amendment being so worded as to
mislead or deceive the voter into believ-
ing the Limitation is retained. The pro-
posed amendment, however, has been
submitted to the best judges and lawyers
in South Dakota, and there remains no
shadow of doubt but that if the amend
ment carries the limitation will be en-
tirely removed, and this was the evident
intent or purpose of those who prepared
the proposed amendment.
Those who have given the matter care
full thought naturally are inquiring why
there should now be a necessity for in.
creasing the burden of taxation on the
people of South Dakota. Up to this time
our levies have been ample and suffici-
ent to meet all legitimate public expen-
ses. Our public institutions have been
built and supported magni6cently. AS
there will be no necessity for any ma.
terial increase in the states expenditures
the voter may well marvel at the temer-
ity of those who at this late day would
even suggest the advisability or neces.
sity of providing for an increase in tax
alton.
1t is a matter of common knowledge
that taxing boards and taxing authori-
ties always exercise this right to the linn
it, regardless of the consequences, and
for that reason the constitutions of every
state have provided this or similar safe
guards against improvident or dishonest
expenditures of public moneys.
The constitutional Limitation is the only
and last safeguard. Remove this and
we are subject to the abuses of the tax.
ing power that the trainers of our con-
stitution-and every state constitution
have attempted to protect the people
against.
This same proposed amendment, if
adopted, will work radical changes in
the taxation of various classes of prop
erty. Section proposes to tax all cor
porate property by different method
or by different standard than indivi-
dual property now is'taxed. In defense
of this section the express companies
are particularly referred to. In this
connection it might be suggested that
while the express companies might pro-
perly be reached the proposed amend
ment applies equally to every creamery,
every incorporated grocery business,
every country bank, and, in fact, will
affect practically every business in South
Dakota, as the great bulk of the busi-
local corporations.
1t should be remembered that We have
at present federal corporation tax, and
if the proposed amendment should be
adopted all property held by local cor
porations would be subject to the tax on
its tangible property and two taxes on
its right or franchise to do business in
the state, in addition to the tax on the
income or gross earnings of every local
corporation.
Conceding that the express companies
should pay more taxes than they do,
why should not this proposed amend.
ment be limited to the party or corpor'
ations that are offending? And why
should thousand and one classes Of
corporate property be caught in this
dragnet for the purpose of catching one
| offender?
If fthere are any good features in the
proposed amendment they are overcome
by its many imperfections and vicious
provisions. Ifthe people desire to re
tain the power to protect their own rights
and property they will vote ''No" on thi
proposed constitutional amendment.
Those who framed the original pro
vision of the constitution fixing a Ia,
limit knew and appreciated its neces
sity, and the people of this generation
should in their own protection refuse Il
remove the Limitation.