Property as a measure of ability to pay taxes is inferior to income, and tax systems will work injustice until income takes the place of property as a basis. An income tax should distinguish between income from property and income from personal exertion, and, in accordance with modern notions of justice in taxation, the former and all funded income should be taxed at a higher rate than the latter. Real property should also continue to be liable for special assessment for improvements which are directly beneficial to it, and a moderate use of the land increment tax would be in accord with modern tendencies. The greatest obstacle to income taxation in the United States is inefficient administration, but Wisconsin is setting an example to the other states with her central supervisory board and her district assessors appointed according to the merit system. The assessors should be removed from local influences, but they should have the benefit of the knowledge of local boards. There should be co-operation between the state and national governments in the assessment of the income tax, and there should be a division of the yield of the tax between the state and local governments.

The constitution of Texas provides for an income tax, but in general the tax provisions of the constitution are obsolete. They do not permit separation of sources, or classification of property for purposes of taxation, or state supervision of assessment, or other methods of tax reforms which have been employed by the states of the United States and foreign countries. Another tax reform which has been advocated in Texas is "home rule" or "local option" in taxation. This would permit towns and cities to adopt such taxes as they saw fit. The state cannot afford to disassociate itself from all concern with local taxation, as this reform proposes, and for the reason principally that it must protect its own sources of revenue. Those proposing this reform are, as a rule, single taxers or advocates of partial exemption of improvements from taxation, neither of which proposals is just in the eyes of those who believe that every person should contribute to the support of the government in accordance with his ability, and that income is the best index of ability. The single tax is not a tax measure, but is a social reform measure which includes the feature of government confiscation of the rent of land. It is not to be judged, therefore, as a fiscal measure, but those who insist that it should be so judged must meet the objections that it is a confiscatory measure and that the concept of income as a basis for taxation is more comprehensive, just, and adequate.

The exemption of the homestead from taxation is another proposed reform. The homestead law of Texas is already too liberal without this addition. Under a system of taxation in which the income tax is the principal tax and the property tax is a supplementary tax, it might be desirable to exempt real property up to a certain amount, but exemption under any other condition would be difficult to defend. Under the existing methods of taxation in Texas the small property owner is undoubtedly discriminated against, but the remedy is not the exemption of his homestead, but it is, so long as the property tax is retained, the fuller taxation of the larger owner and the abandonment of the discrimination in favor of acreage property and vacant lots.

The provisions of the Texas constitution relating to the state debt reflect the political, economic, and financial conditions which existed in 1875. Distrust of the legislative and executive branches of the government is shown in the small amount of debt which may be incurred, except under extraordinary conditions of war, insurrection, or invasion. This amount, $200,000, reflects also the hard times existing in 1875. There should be some provision against the frequent deficits in the treasury which work such hardships upon the employees and creditors of the state. Authority should be given the treasury to make temporary loans to an amount sufficient to avoid deficiencies, or the warrants of the state should draw interest until they are called for payment.

A more sensible system of appropriations should be adopted, and to this end the governor and representatives of both branches of the legislature should act together as a budget council or committee in arriving at the needs of the various institutions and departments of the public service, in estimating the future revenue, and in framing the appropriation measure. The result of their work would be a budget which should be submitted to the legislature, and there should be limitations in the changes which the legislature might make and on the veto powers of the governor. There certainly should be a change from the existing arrangement under which the appropriation measure is one of the last measures to pass the legislature before final adjournment, with the result that the governor's veto of items goes unchallenged.

However laudable the purposes of public expenditures and however generous the provision for them, there will be waste and ineffective service, unless the public officials are honest and capable. There will never be satisfactory public officials until the "spoils system" is done away with, and the public service is looked upon as a profession. Those who follow this profession should be trained for it, they should be chosen for their fitness, and they should have security of tenure. The accounts of public officials who handle public funds should be regularly audited, and for this work an expert force of auditors is necessary. These auditors might also be expected to study methods of organiaztion and conduct of the public business.

In conclusion, it may be observed that the responsibility for the shortcomings of the financial system and of government generally and the hope of their betterment lie with the average citizen. He has no one to blame but himself, and there will be no important reform until he ceases to be individualistic, ignorant, and indifferent as regards public affairs.