Oxford eagle., 1922-04-13
BILL To TAX UNIVERSITY
PROPERTY IN CITY LIMITS

to defeat the measure On the ground
that it violated that provision of the
constitution which forbids he passage
Of any law in1rairing the obligation
of a contract, but for some reason
this objection was not insisted upon,
and the measure was opposed on the
ground that it would amount to a
reputation of contract and break
ing faith with the lessees.
They say that this exemption
clause must be read into the contract
leasing the land and becomes part
thereof as much as if it was written
into it by the parties thereto.
For the sake of argument, this
proposition is conceded, but when
you do this you must also read into
the contract the other laws of the
state, and when you study the con-
stitution of Mississippi YOU will dis
cover that the people wrote in it a
provision that the legislature shall
never relinquish its right to repeal
and amend any law, and this beng
true the lessee consented when he
signed, the lease that the legislature
could withdraw the exemption when
ever it saw proper.
For this reason, the argument that
the passage of the bill would be
tantamount to repudiating contract
or was acting in bad faith with the
lessees cannot be maintained.
This was not q measure designed
in any way to iniure the University,
for the bill did not in any way eff
feet it, but simply sought to make
the lessees pay a tax on the value or
the improvements on the land owned
by them.
The people of Oxford, as well as
the people of the county of La
favette, love the University, have a
pride in its growth, and ever stand
ready to do all in their power to ad-
vance its interest.
Oxford and the University are in
separable, and it is impossible TO
think of one without the other. Al
most since the date of the founding
of Oxford, the University has been a
mart of it. and it is the sincere wish
of the people here that nothing shall
ever occur to mar or sever this most
cordial relation.
AS many as four owners of inn
provements and homes on the lands
leased by the University have de-
clared that the proposed bill is just
and righteous and should become a
law.
An impression seems to prevail,
and it is an erroneous one, too,
that the proposed measure would
cause members of the faculty oc-
cupying homes furnished by the Uni
versity to pay not only rent but
taxes. This is an incorrect lnterpre-
tation of the proposed legislation.
The bill does not tax any lands or
improvements belonging to the Uni
versity, and, therefore, any home
furnished member of the faculty
bv the University to live in would
not be covered by the measure or
come within it's purview. The bill
puts a tax on the improvements own
ed by other persons than the Uni
versity.
Another impression seems to pre-
vail that because some of the leases
contain harsh covenants and condl-
tions, or the absence of covenant
requiring the lessor to purchase the
improvements erected Oh the leased
premises when the lease expires in
the event the lessor does not renew
the lease, that this in itself furnishes
a reason why the lease hold interest
should not be taxed. The answer to
this is that an interest under such
unfavorable conditions, surrounded
by such harsh conditions or cove
nants would not be as valuable as a
leasehold hold interest with more
favorable covenants. The difference
is that the value of the one would
diminish while the other would in
crease.
1t is not the policy of the law to
exempt a mans leasehold interest in
land just because the lease granting
same contains harsh covenants. The
lessee has entered into a bad bar
gain, that's all.
Admiral Kato, of Japan, who was
o++orJ;~r +bo confornncn at Wash