Year: 1864

|
tee to the constitutional question. Th,
constitutional provision, that laws of
general nature shall be uniform in opera
tion, simply means that they shall ope
rate uniformly throughout the State, moi
that they shall uniformly affect every In
dividual in the State, or every corporation
like every individual. If this and Other
clauses referred TO are valid objections to
the present mode of taxing railroads
many of our laws are unconstitutional, and
especially the ones for taking votes ol
soldiers, exempting their property from
attachment and execution, continuing
their causes in courts while in the service,
and exempting wool and other property
from tax. And the exemption Of wool is
made expressly to encourage the growth
of that article. But it is not unconstisu.
tional, but wise provision for developing
the resources of the State.


Ii the constitutional arguments against
the present law are valid, then this law is
also unconstitutional, and unnecessary.
1t is unconstitutional because it is a spe-
cial law for taxing railroads, and pre-
scrlbes rules essentially differing from the
mode applicable to individuals. II is un-
necessary because we have now a gene
raj law for taxing individual property
which Senators claim is rule for corpo-
rations.


But decision of the Supreme Court of
Wisconsin is relied on. (ll Wis. 35).
That decision is based on a provision of
their Constitution entirely different in
terms and import from ours, and yet
beg leave to say that that decision does
not comport with fair Interpretation Of
their Constitution.


But our Constitution has been con-
strued by our own coust. In Talman rs
Treasurer Butler o., the constitutional
ity Of the law of 1853 taxing railroad
property through the stock, was directly
involved. The law taxed real estate as
personal property, and the Supreme
Court affirmed the decree of the court
below perpetually enjoining the collec.
ton Of the tax. This decision could not
have been made properly, if the law was
unconstitutional, and yet the mode pre-
scribed by the act of 1865, is different
from that prescribed for individuals, and
is as amenable to the constitutional ob-
jection as the mode prescribed By the act
of 1862.


Whether. therefore, we view the bill
under consideration, in a constitutional
light. or as measure Of policy, the ar
guments in its favor are invalid Let US
legislate literally and eucouragingly to-
wards the railroads, and We shall legislate
wisely and when the immense resources
of the State have been developed, and the
railroad influences shall have poured
flood of hardy, thrifty, intelligent people,
and untold wealth iuto the State, future
generations will rise up to bless us.


DIR. Cue said, l regard this bill as one
of vital interest to our citizens, and in my
opinion its passage would strike fatal
blow to the extension of railroads in this
State Tor many years to come. This
proposition to tax railroads is not ques-
ton of principle. No one doubts the
right or po,cer Of the Legislature to tax
railroads just as heavily as it chooses. 1t
Is simply a matter Of policy. Is it the
true policy of this State to take advantage
of the fact that capitalists of the East have
invested large amounts of money here
among us in building railroads; and now.
before they are nearly completed, while
only small portion of the State has yet
been benefited by them, and while they
are struggling against every obstacle con-
sequent upon the unsettled state OF finan-
cial affairs, shall we add to these Difficult.
ties BY levying an enormous tax on every
dollar used In extending these great
works of internal Improvement, without
which remote portions of our State can
not be settled for years? We might, it
Is true, derive some revenue from such as
the one proposed, bat in my opinion it
would injure US ten dollars where it ben
Gifted US one. Every dollar thus collect
ed, would come out Of our own citizens
who use the roads for sending off their
produce, in the increased rates of freight.
and the whole amount Of taxes thus rais-
ed, must come out of the money that
would otherwise be used to extend the
roads. Does this Legislature wish to
levy an additional tax on the producer, or
does 1t desire to seriously cripple the
bnilding of railroads in our State7 If
this bill becomes law it will do one or
both of these things.


We must recollect that we have no
means in this State sufficient to build
these railroads that our citizens SO much
need, and We cannot compel eastern CAPT.
tai to come here. By unfriendly legislation
We drive railroad capital to other Western
States for investment, and our rich but
wild plains of vast extent, now inhabited
only by prairie wolves, must remain un.
settled for years.


But the Senator from Henry tells us
that it is unconstitutional to exempt rail.
roads from taxation !; if this is true ask
him to tell us how it happens that a GER
tain amount of property of farmers and
mechanics, of schools and religious so.
cietiee, Of FIRE companies and insurance
companies, is nov and have been for
years exempt from taxation /? Has any
one ever discovered, or any court in our
State decided, these laws to be upcoosti.
tutional 7 ls railroad company anv
more designed for pecuniary profit than
an insurance company And II We dis.