For a forthcoming book
with my New America colleague Mark Paul, I’ve been studying the constitutional
history of California. I recently read the transcript of the 1878-79
constitutional convention, the last such convention in the state.
One
argument that took place among the delegates on Feb. 10, 1879, had to do with
adding a limit on property taxes. Excerpts of the debate follow. It began with
the following proposed amendment:
"The
State tax on property, exclusive of such tax as may be necessary to pay the
existing State debt, shall not exceed forty cents on each one hundred dollars
for any one year."
Mr.
HENRY EDGERTON (A Republican delegate and lawyer from Sacramento): I move to
strike out the section. I do not think it is wise to put a limitation of that
kind upon the Legislature. As to the limitation prescribed, I have taken pains
to consult the Governor and Controller, and they say it will not do to fix the
limit at forty cents. The State rate is not fifty-five cents; between
twenty-seven and twenty-eight cents of that goes to the School Fund, and if
this limit is put in, the remainder will not be adequate to meet the expenses
of the Government, and I think it would be very unwise to insert this provision.
There
is this difference between this State and those who institutions are
permanently established; they can tell exactly what it will cost to support
their State Prisons and other institutions. I have heard it predicted that
there will be an immense influx into our asylums; whether it is based upon the
proceedings of this Convention or not I cannot say, but that prediction is
made. [Editor’s note: Yes, this is a joke
of sorts-they were tired and cranky at this point]. Under the present
Constitution the State tax has been as high as one dollar and five cents, which
was during the war [Editor: The Civil
War]. I do not believe the time has yet come for this state to limit the
rate of taxation in the Constitution. That ought to be left to the Legislature…
Mr.
WILLIAM WHITE (an Irish-born farmer and Workingmen’s Party delegate from
Watsonville): I have made some inquiries in regard to this matter. This is to
be exclusive of the public debt. It is high enough, and it is necessary to have
some limitation in the interest of economy; it is absolutely necessary that
there should be some limit to the amount of money that can be spent. We had
better cramp a little than to have the treasury so full as to merit
speculation.
Mr.
EDGERTON: Has the gentleman ever got any money on speculation?
Mr.
WHITE: No, sir.
Mr.
EDGERTON: Does he know anybody who has?
Mr.
WHITE: No, sir; but there is a great deal of extravagance. The money is squandered
here on this building [editor: they were
meeting in the Capitol in Sacramento], and for insane asylums, in ornaments
that are of no use whatever. This building here is an absurdity. It took more
money than all the money we have got in coin to build this very building. Look
at this building. Forty thousand dollars appropriated to improve these grounds.
Under these circumstances I think it is highly necessary that we should put in
this limit. There are not a million people in this State, yet, and we are going
on as though we had ten times the wealth we have. I was in favor of cutting it
down to thirty cents, but I made some inquiries, and they told me they didn’t
think we could get along under forty cents. I think this is a very useful
amendment.
Mr.
LEWIS FULLER JONES (A Democrat and lawyer from Mariposa City): I hope the
section will be stricken out, sir. .. it is right, if the people of this State
desire to change the organic law, it is right that they should have the power
to make the necessary appropriations, and it is not right to prevent them by
constitutional provision from doing so.
There
are various contingencies which may arise. When we consider the steps we have
already taken here, we may find ourselves ere long at war with the Empire of
China [Editor: the convention added a
whole article of anti-Chinese amendments], and, indeed, I don’t know but we
may expect to find ourselves at war with the government of the United States
also. If we are going into that sort of business we will need more than forty
cents tax to carry us through. I think the people should have the right once in
two years [editor: the legislature was part time then] to prescribe the rate of
taxation, and it is not necessary that this Convention should take it out of
the power of the Legislature to exercise that reasonable discretion.
Mr.
WHITE: Do you approve of all the extravagant ornaments on this extravagant
building?
Mr.
JONES: I disapprove of the miserable acoustic properties of this hall. I do not
disapprove of the images which you refer to; I do not suppose they cost a great
deal… I am opposed to this section on principle, because I do not believe in
tying the Legislature hand and foot. I believe in allowing them some
discretion. How are we going to tell what revenue will be needed?
Mr. Jones prevailed. The proposed amendment
limiting property taxes was not included in the constitution.