Year: 1876

IL is DelleVed that the proposed
amendments involve very important
principles affecting every depart
ment of the State government, and
that few questions which may come
before the next legislature will be
fraught with more intrinsic interest.
In the amendments are involved
the vital questions of State finance,
which will engross the time and al
tentiOn of the next legislature. For
if the constitution should be chang
ed, as it is proposed. an increased
revenue would follow, and great
reduction in expenses.


1t is apprehended thsk compare
lively few people have the State
constitution, and consequently, are
unable to comprehend the nature Of
the proposed amendments. AS
published in the papers they are
unintelligible without being read in
connection with the sections to
which they refer. 1t is now pro
posed to present the amendments,
so as to give an intelligent idea of
the changes sought to be effected
in our constitution. In due time,
doubtless, those seeking political
preferment will be required to say
if they are in favor of submitting
the amendments to the people for
their action.


The most important change is IN
relation to taxation. BY the Con
stitution, Art. II. Sec. %, one thou
sand dollars worth of personal
property in the hands of each tax
payer is excepted from taxation.
The provision originated with the
constitution of 1870. 1t was doubt
less dictated by q humane and
generous spirit. Its object was to
relieve large number of the citi
zens of the State from the burdens
of taxation. The measure, it is
presumed, grew out of the belief
that it was the policy and interest
of the State to exempt the poorer
classes from contributing to the
support of the government. As an
exhibition of generosity, benevo-
lence and kindness to the poor, the
provision receives unqualified ap
probation. But as a matter of State
policy, of justice, of equality and
uniformity in the administration of
public affairs, the subject admits of
grave doubts. While it is true that
absolute equality and strict justice
are not attainable in apportioning
what each citizen should contribute
to the support of the government,
yet it is equally true, that the laws
should, at least, aim at abstract jas
tice and equality in the imposition
of taxes, and that out of the whole
property in the State the revenue
should he derived. Taxation is the
price which the government charges
for the protection which it affords
to the persons and property of its
citizens. Every citizen receives the
same personal protection, and each
should bear his burden; each citi-
zen's property is protected by the
same law, and he should bear the
burden in proportion to the interest
protected and secured, whether it
be small or great. The exemption
of one thousand dollars worth Of
personal property from taxation is
in contrayention of the spirit Of our
whole system of taxation, and is a
covert violation of the coRstitu-
tiOnal provision that taxation shall
be equal and uniform. This eX


emption is nothing more or less
than class legislation, which was
inhibited by the constitution in
which the exemption clause is in
serted. 1t would have been viola


tive, on its face, of every principle
of uniformity if the constitution
had exempted from taxation the
personal property of those only
which did not exceed one thousand
dollars in value. This would have
been legislating for a class, namely,
those worth one thousand dollars
of personal property and less.


To avoid this objection the cXemp-
ton was extended to all tax payers.


But in fact it is a species of class
legislation, designed for one class,


and in its practical workings ope


rates only for the benefit of those


owning one thousand dollars, and


less, of personal property. Now, il


is claimed for this exemption that


it is a uniform and general law, and


that every tax payer has its indul
gent benefits. The absurdity O


this position is quite apparent wher


it is considered that a certain


amount of money is required annu


ally to operate the government, anC


that the more taxable property


there is, the less will be the pei


cent. Our rate of taxation is now
forty cents on the one hundred dol


lars. This estimate was made 10y


the legislature upon the taxable


property, and in view of certain


sum of revenue required to b.
raised. Now, it is clear that if ther


was no personal property exempt


even in the hands of those who d'


paw the taxes, that the rate of taxa


tion would be less than forty cents
hence, the exemption is almost ex
olusively confined in its benefits t


those owning one thousand dollar
and less. To say that the ta
payer is favored by the exemptio
of one thousand dollars worth o
, property, when By that very exemI
+ ton his remaining property is moI
highly taxed, is an absurdity. Th
, manifest and gross injustice of thi


exemption is seen among those fC


whom its benefits are intended
I The property Of one man consist
: in a thousand dollars worth of Lam
r anoibeT'e IN a thousand dollar
. worth Of personally, TIE land
taxed and the personality is eXemp
q 1t is believed that the great majo
. ity of the people favor the abolitic
= of this exemption, as by it almo
= every one would contribute som
= thing to the support of the Cover
= ment. and an increased reyent
q woald lighten the burden of tho
- upon whom the nrgnt talls. 81
frage and taxation work well
- gether. The tax payer must
i necessity feel an interest in t
~ affairs Of the State, and in the cx'
= else Of his suffrage he viii exerci


= -