|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
260 WILLIAMS' CASE.
only then draws no revenue from such property; but, from the
nature of his estate, he may never have it in his power to derive
any profit whatever from it. But if, on the other hand, by the
expression, 'according to his actual worth in property,' it was
intended, that the contribution should be according to the capital
value of property of all descriptions, without regard to any present
profit which its owner might derive from it; then it would seem,
that as a naked unproductive reversion or remainder it must be re-
garded as property, as well as the highly profitable life estate upon
which it depends, the owner of each interest must be made to con-
tribute according to his actual worth in each of these kinds of pro-
perty; and, that as the two estates together are no more than equal
to a fee simple, so the tax upon each should be apportioned be-
tween the two, so as to be no more than equivalent to a tax upon
the whole estate, if held altogether by one and the same owner.
The first General Assembly, convened under the constitution,
in an act, the general frame of which seems to have been taken
from the before mentioned English statute of 1692, declared, that a
rate of two shillings in the pound should be set on all real and per-
sonal estate including ready money, tobacco in warehouses, and
plate, according to the true value thereof; not, as by the English
statute, according to the annual rent of the land. Yet it was pro-
vided, that if any person should be compelled by the enemy to
leave his habitation, or be rendered incapable of carrying on his
business he might be exempted from taxation. And it was also
declared, that where land stood charged with the payment of rent,
the lessee might pay the tax, and have it deducted from his rent.
Thus charging him who occupied without rent, or the landlord who
received the rent with the whole tax. (n) According to this mode
of making the assessment, therefore, it would seem, that the first
General Assembly had adopted that interpretation of this consti-
tutional rule which looked to a contribution from each person in
proportion to his revenue as being the true understanding of what
was meant by his actual worth in property, without including any
mere abstract right of property, such as land which had been laid
waste, or was then occupied by the public enemy, or a naked re-
versionary interest unattended by any present profit. But, however,
that may have been, this mode of making the assessment was soon
put aside.
(n) February, 1777, ch, 21 and 22; June, 1777, ch. 14; October, 1777, ch. 14.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
