The property in controversy was found by the Court below to be a growing crop, which, it is conceded, is exempt from taxation under the statute. By the other side it is urged that the statute creating the exemption is unconstitutional. This, on our part, is denied; but even if the assumption be correct, the Constitution cannot execute itself. Of itself it is inoperative. (Cary v. Fall, 6 Cal. 630; Pfeifer v. Riehn, 13 Cal. 649.) Supposethe statute is unconstitutional, what then? It only results that the people are without a remedy as to their supposed right until there shall be further legislation. Here there is no semblance of ground for the operation of the rule in The People v. McCreery and kindred cases. In these cases the Legislature had directly sought to enforce an unconstitutional tax. The Courts have no means and no power to avoid the effects of non-action, as in this case. (Myers v. English, 9 Cal. 348; People v. Weller, 11 Cal. 60.)
JUDGES: Sanderson, J. Mr. Justice Rhodes expressed no opinion.
OPINION
SANDERSON, Judge
In the case of The People v. McCreery, 34 Cal. 433, we held the Revenue Laws of this State to be unconstitutional, so far as they exempt private property from taxation. It follows that, in reading those laws, all parts thereof relating to the exemption of private property must be disregarded.
The property in question in this case was private property, and was therefore taxable.
Judgment reversed, and the Court below directed to enter judgment for the plaintiff.