El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1913-09-02
JUDGE swEElEEY ON TAX QUESTION


signature Of the writer. but the name
viii be withheld if requested
JUDGE sWEElGEY ON TAX QUESTION
Editor FL Paso Herald:
Taxation shall be equal and uniform.
/ All property IN this state, whether
! owned by natural persons or corpora
I lions. other than municipal, shall be
/ taxed in proportion to its value. (COn.
Texas" Art 8. Sec II
The wrong consisted in that case,
as in this denying the appellee the right
10 nave tother property owners In the
county (state) to pay taxes in the
same proportion upon their property as
it was required to pay. The fact that
4 appellee was not required TO pay more
than IT should does not satisfy the
constitutional right to have all others
owning property in the same territory
and subject to like taxation to bear
their equal portion OF the burden OF
government That is a substantial
forced in the courts (Lively vs. Ms
souri,, etc, Ry- Co, 40 S W. page
$50
The foregoing quotations. one from
the constitution of the state OF Texas.
and one from the highest court OF
Texas, utterly demolish every argument
advanced by those Of our officers sup
ported by few citizens, who maintain
that the county Of FL -PasO should pay
to the state OF Texas, for this year of
grace, 1913, over 5000. 600 in state taxes
when its Just proportion OF state taxes
would be only about $1,000. That
these officers were bound by their oath
Of office to perpetrate this extortiOn
upon their fellow citizens, because it
was their sworn duty to assess prop
erty for taxes at its actual value has
already been publicly abandoned by
those officers, when they admitted in
the presence Of protesting tax payers
that they were only assessing property
for taxation at somewhat less than so
percent OF its actual WaluH
they promised that next year. they
would reduce the rate OF assessment to
correspond with the average OF the
state It is evident then, that these Of
dcers did not resolve to donate to the
state OF Texas over 100000 OF the
money belonging to the property own
ers Of this county, because they were
compelled to do so By their Oaths OF
office operating upon sensitive con-
sciences. for If they had been guided
by their OathS OF office as they inter
pref that oath, they would have as
sessed property at 100 cents on the dol
lar, and given the state over 100000
In excess OF the $50. 600, which Is our
Just proportion. I contend, and during
Judge. / always acted in such matters
upon that conviction. that the consti-
tuition OF the state Of Texas is the su-
preme law. governing its officers in
such matters That constitution saws
that taxationS shall be equal and uni
form, and yet we are to pay the state
Of Texas over 5000, 600. when the prop-
erty owners Of other counties, of equal
wealth. pay only $50. 900.
II our commissioners are going to re-
0uce assessments. next year, to an
equality with the average, why did
why do. they not do SO this year, and
save US S1O0,OOO2 If their oaths Of Of
ice require them now, TO be parties to
the plunder Of this county, for the bene-
1T OF east Texas. will not those same
oaths of office require them to do like
g
This matter OF edualizine- taxation
was brought to the attention OF the
commissioners court by me, in a pub
nc session Of that body, early in June
of this year. and during the years that
nave elapsed since ceased to be county
judge, have often spoken with various
members Of that court upon the same
subject, and to the same effect so It
matter to the court. and that 1t did not
have time to safeguard the interests OF
the citizens. The truth is, Mr. Editor,
that motives. doubtless not unworthy
ones. other than Oarhs OF office en-
tered into this matter. and Il was hoped
that it would quietly die and be for
gotten entertain the hope that such
VIII not be the case 1t is becoming a
matter OF state wide interest and IS
beng discussed In our leading papers
As to the state OF Texas BY its at
torney general having the members
pr our commissioners court removed
from office, If they follow my sugges-
ton, which is based on the Imperative
words OF the constitution. what court
would dare TO remove a public officer
because mat ofucer would not rob his
constituents of 100000. and violate the
constitution in so rObbing2 Our officers
'ught eagerly to desire such an attempt
% remove them from office, which
would not only call attention to the
wrongs from which we have suffered,
'ut establish our violated right. which,
IS Judge Brown has stated, is a sub
sramrTa1 rfornr that ma he aaT ~
enforced in the courts"
Respectfully yours
Jos. Q. Sweeney.