The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1918-02-15
O'NEILL
EXPLAINS
CROPLAW

Senator Thos j. O'Neill in a let
ter addressed to the Express, ex-
plains the law passed by the state
legislature in 1916 relative to the
advalorem tax on all farm products
remaining in a raw state. The let.
ter follows
I'm your issue Of yesterday, ses
: that county assessors are instructed
to require farmers to give, in their
assessments, "all raw products of
their farms, on hand at the first Of
the year" The attorney general is
reported as basing his action upon
the opinion entertained by jhim that
the law is unconstitutional and in
conflict with another act passed at
the same session, as the law in ques-
ton.
The legislature of the 1915 session
passed the law in question, and it is
known as house bill No IA; 1t ap-
pears on page GA, acts 1915, and ex-
empts all farm products while re-
naming in the raw state such as
cotton, corn, wheat, oats and the
like" from advalorem tax. This
measure received very careful con.
sideration and investigation We
found that the buyers of agricultural
products, especially wheat and cot
ton in making prices to farmers,
very naturally took into considera
ton the possibility of holding their
purchases for better prices espe-
cially late in the season. and thelc
Liability for taxes thereon after Jan.
let, and hedged against such liza
bility by giving the farmer less to
the extent of the probable tax, in
cotton for instance, making a differs
ence of from one to perhaps as
much as two dollars per bale, de.
pending of course on the price Of
the staple.
OF course, much of the produc'
was not in fact held by the buyer
on Jan. 1st, having been put under
interstate bill of lading, or, already
shipped out. but the farmer had sus-
tanned the loss in price, and the
state realized no taxes thereon. If
the farmer desired to take the
chances on the market himself and
hold his cotton, he was confronted
with the burden of taxation after
Jan. 1st Under this law, we lifted
this burden from him, and under
this law the farmers of our state
have been greatly benefited, realiz-
ing annually for the past three sea-
sons large sums that would have
been taken from them under the for
mer law, and the state has not lost
in the matter Of advalorem taxes,
because under the former system
the state did not realize upon farm
products in the raw state on hand
sfter Jan. 1st although the farmer
had in fast stood for, and paid in
loss in price the tax
This law now assailed for the first
time, an' by a state official, has
been in 1orce for the three past sea-
sons, is not unconstitutional, and is
not in conflict with the law passed
at a later date, and known as house
bill No. "a, acts of 1915, page 10.
The assumption of the attorney gen.
eral that the law is unconstitutional,
Cr that it has been repealed, is un-
sound and further, is not at all in
harmony with his previous utter
ances on this subject On Dec. 29th.
1918, he declared, This office has
always taken the position that it was
the duty of executive officers to
treat legislative euactments as con-
stitutional," and further, "the legis-
lative intent was not to repeal the
provisions of house bill No. II, by
tie later enactment referring to
house bill No. 81. The final con-
clusion Of the department of the at.