Year: 1876

Since the Supreme Court Of this State
it is quite evident that the assessment
roll of every county will show marked
decrease in property valuation which will,
of necessity, require greater levy upon
such property rs is not so fortunate.
Some who are conyersant with financial
matters, estimate that for State purposes
alone the increased levy will reach as
high as one fifth of one per cent. We
do not question but the Court las rightly
construed the Constitution, and its
final decision OF a much disputed question
is only in consonancc with the opinions
OF many of the most eminant legal minds
in the State. But whether it be good
law or rot, it is not justice. 1t has but
one rcdeeming feature, and that is that
it will have tendency to cheOpen the
rate of usury and set loose capital which
would otherwise be chary of bunting
market But will it not also have n
tendency in the opposite direction For



cd capital is subject to taxation while
the capital itself escane9, il cannot but be
apparent to all that the holders Of money
will prefer to assume the role Of Shylneks,
lolning it out where it will bring in
fixed annual income free of cost to using
it in manner that will build up indus
tries and be of beneficial character to
society in general.


That 1t was the intention of the framcis
OF our Constitution that the clause which
declares that "taxation shall be uniform
and equal" should bear the construction
now placed upon it we do not believe.
Nor do we believe that the decision Of
the Court OF last resort is an acceptable
one to the people Of the State. The law
OF Congress which declared that the
United States bonds should be exempt
from local taxation, although acquie, ed
in by men who held the l;ie Of the nation at
hcart rs n necessary measure to strengthen
ou edit, and furnish the sinewa OF
war;" was looked upon with great dis
flvor and formed II staple and ehectiN G
line Of argument for the opponents Of the
Repub lean party, which had been tie
champions Of the Act. Without doubt
it was used as political argument by
some of those who arc foremost TO APP
plaud the gst of this decision, but that
does not detIact from the fact that it
Al, Ia,
ground Of stern necessity, and that it was
SO recognized by its advocates at the
time. 1t is II maxim of political economy
that the wealth Of II country should bear
its burdens of government, and when it
fails to do 50, there is defect Of law
which calls loudly for some adequate
remedy. Undoubtedly the weallhier
Glasses will not object to this decision, in
fact it is the moneyed interests Of the
State which has fought this question OF
taxation through IA series OF years to
final success.


The money-kngs have triumphed so
far and now that we have found where
the defect lies, we must look for the rem
cdy. That cannot be found in the ordi.
nary course Of legislation. The Constitu-
tim is above the law and rs this release
OF taxation is basco upon the supposed
meaning of a clause in that instrument,
the remedy can be found only in chang
ing the fundamental law. This is an
additional reason for calling Conven-
ton to revise the Constitution as soon as
it can be legally done. And those who
believe as we do, that the best interest
of the State, so far as revenue concerned,
lies in making the possessors of its wealth
sustain an equitable share OF its burdens,
should see to it that in the choice for del
egates to revise the Constitution that
none should be chosen whose views are
not identical with their own.