In re Limitation of Taxation
In re Limitation of Taxation
Opinion of the Court
An opinion of the judges of the supreme court as to the limits of taxation under the constitution of South Dakota.
Supreme Court Chambers.
Pierre, January 14, 1893.
His Excellency, C. H. Sheldon, Governor of South Dakota.
Sir: We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication under date January 7,1898, in which yon propound
Article 11, § 1, of the constitution, under the head of “Revenue and Finance,” provides that “the legislature shall provide for an annual tax sufficient to defray the estimated ordinary expenses of the state, for each year, not to exceed in any one year two mills on each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property in the state, to be ascertained by the last assessment made for state and county purposes; and whenever it shall appear that such ordinary expenses shall exceed the income of the state for such year, the legislature shall provide for levying a tax for the ensuing year, sufficient, with other sources of income, to pay the deficiency of ,the preceding year, together with the estimated expenses of such ensuing year; and for the purpose of paying the public debt the legislature shall provide for levying a tax annually, sufficient to pay the annual interest and the principal of such debt within ten years from the final passage of the law creating the debt; provided, that the annual tax for the payment of the interest and principal of the public debt shall not exceed in any one year two mills on each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property in the state, as ascertained by the last assessment made for the state and county purposes.” This section relates to three different and distinct items of taxation: First, the annual tax for defraying the estimated ordinary expenses of the state; second, taxes to pay deficiencies existing from preceding years; third, taxation for the purpose of paying the public debt. For the payment of the estimated ordinary expenses of the state the tax shall not exceed in any one year two mills on the dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property as shown by the last preceding assessment. It will be observed that the first and primary duty imposed upon the legislature by this section is to provide by annual tax for the “estimated ordinary expenses of the state,” and this tax must not exceed a two-mill rate. This provision presupposes that a careful estimate will be made of the amount required to meet the neces
This, we think, answers your inquiry as to the ordinary expenses of the state, mentioned in the constitutional section referred to, but leaves unnoticed the authority of the legislature to provide for extraordinary and exceptional expenses. The power of taxation is legislative in character, and as such resides in the organized legislature of the state. Except as limited by constitutional restriction, such legislative power to tax is controlled only by the judgment, the patriotism, and sense of right and justice of the representatives of the people in such legislature assembled. As we have already seen, the constitution has limited the authority of the legislature to impose a tax for the ordinary expenses of the state, but it has also recognized the possible necessity for other expenses, not ordinary, to which such restriction does not apply. The “ordinary expenses” of the state are practically defined in section 2, art. 12 of the constitution, and are the “ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state, the current expenses of state institutions, interest on the public debt, and for common schools.” To meet these ordinary expenses, appropriation may be made by one general appropriation law, passed by the usual majority vote; but to meet extraordinary expenses each object of appropriation must be the subject of an independent and separate bill, passed by a two-thirds vote. We regard this plainly marked distinction between ordinary and extraordinary expenses, and the extreme carefulness with which the constitution has undertaken to guard the taxpayers and the public treasury against hasty and ill-advised outlays-for extraordinary expenses, as peculiarly significant in construing the constitutional provisions involved in your inquiry. As to the ordinary current expenses of the state, which can be each year estimated with close approximation to correctness, excessive taxation is provided against by a fixed maximum rate; but probably no constitution could safely provide an arbitrary limit to taxation
We have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servants,
Reference
- Cited By
- 17 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Const, art. 11, § 1, provides that the legislature shall provide for an annual tax to defray the ordinary expenses of the state for each year, not to exceed in any one year two mills on each dollar of the assessed valuation; and whenever such ordinary expenses shall exceed the income of the state for such year, the legislature shall provide for levying a tax for the ensuing year, sufficient, with the other sources of income, to pay the deficiency of tlie preceding year, together with the expenses of such ensuing year; and for the purpose of paying the public debt the legislature shall provide for levying a tax annually, sufficient to pay the annual interest and the principal within 10 years, provided that the annual tax for the payment of the interest and principal of the public debt shall not exceed in any one year two mills on each dollar of the assessed valuation. Held, that the provision relates to three distinct items of taxation: (1) The annual tax for “the estimated ordinary expenses of the state;” (2) taxation to pay deficiencies from preceding years; (3) taxation to pay the public debt. 2. The legislature is limited to a two-mill tax for the first and third items mentioned; but when a deficiency is shown to exist, resulting from the excess of ordinary expenses over the fund available for that purpose, the legislature has power to levy an assessment sufficient to meet the deficiency, without regard to the .two-mill limitation, and the money raised for such deficiency must be used exclusively for its payment, and cannot be diverted to any other use. 3. Const, art. 11, section 8, provides that “no tax shall be levied, except in pursuance of law, which shall distinctly state the object of the same, to which the tax only shall be applied.” Art. 32, section 2, provides that “the general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state, the current expenses of state institutions, interest on the public debt, and for common schools. All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one object, and shall require a two-thirds vote of all the members of each branch of the legislature.” Held, that the two-mill limitation applies only to the items embraced within the “general appropriation bill,” Which items constitute the “ordinary expenses,” within the meaning of article 11, section 1, but as to “all other appropriations” to meet the extraordinary expenses of the state the legislative power is controlled only by their sense of justice, as expressed by a two-thirds vote of all the members of each house. 4. A law providing for the levy of a tax for an extraordinary expense must clearly state its object, and the tax so raised cannot be diverted to any other use. (Syllabus by the Court.