Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1910-11-03
SHOULD RETAIN TAX LIMIT
Proposed Amendment to Article
NI of the State Constitution
SHOULD be Voted Down.

oS NOtGu JOWH.
Before attempting to vote upon the
proposed laws and amendments which
are to be submitted to them at the cleo
ton on November 8, the voters of South
Dakota should thoroughly post them
selves on the various propositions. 1t
is source of surprise to many that the
last legislature should have submitted
an amendment to Article Al of our con-
stitution, in view of the fact that a
similar amendment was submitted to
the voters of South Dakota at the cleo
ton two years ago and was defeated by
an overwhelming 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 pos
sible for the legislature to provide for
levy of any amount; and. in fact,
inviting public officers and the legisla-
ture to adopt course of extravaganza
in the use and expenditure of the peo-
ple's money. The only safeguard the
people have ever had against extrava-
gance and exorbitant taxation is this
constitutional limitation, and if this be
once removed the people must there
after be subject to the will or ca rice
of various legislatures and taxing
authorities for all time to come.
The limitation is designed to be
removed in cunning manner, the pro-
posed amendment being so worded as
to mislead or deceive the voter into
believing the limitation is retained The
proposed 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 amendment carries the limitation
will be entirely removed, and this was
the evident intent or purpose of those
who prepared the proposed amendment.
Those who have given the matter
careful thought naturally are inouiring
why there should now be a necessity
for increasing the burden of taxation
on the people of South Dakota. Up to
this time our levies have been ample
and sufficient too meet all legitimate
public expenses. Our public institu-
tons have been built and supported
magnifcen,ly. AS there will be no
necessity for any material increase in
the states expenditures the voter may
well marvel at the termerity of those
who at this late day would even suggest
the ACCESSIBILITY or necessity of provid-
ing for an increase in taxation.
1t is matter of common knowledge
that taxing boards and taxing authori-
ties always exercise their right to the
limit, regardless of the consequences
and for that reason the constitution of
every state has provided this or SINH
lar safeguards against improvident or
dishonest expenditures of public mon
eys.
The constitutional limitation is the
emily and last safeguard. Remove this
and we are subject to the abuses of the
taxing power that the trainers of our
constitution every state constitu-
tion-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 3 proposes to tax all cor
porate property by different method
or by different standard than individ-
ual 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