The Van Buren press., 1875-08-31
County Finauces-Another Letter from
Col. J. +. Cravsns.

| Col. j. II. Cravens.
We tihd In the Little Rock Gazette Of the
aith another letter from Col. Cravehs of
Clark.vllc. fortifyin the opinion heretofore
expressed by him on the County finance
question;
GAINESVILLE, ARK, Aug 20.
EDiroHs GAZETTE: Since you are constant
~ tproperly so! calling legal gentlemen to n
consideration yt the positions taken by the I'm
my communication OF the I'D inst, desire to
direct their attehtion to a few authorities. As
to whether the interprc tation placed upon the
constitution /. correct or net have nothing
further to say; but If correct, whether 1t
amounts to the impairing of the obligation OF
any contract between the state or the coun
ties and any scrip holder, Is the point to
which desire to direct attention. My posi-
ton Is, that the act of 1916, providing that
scrip shall be received in payment of taxes,
etc. Is merely legislative In its character.
having none of the elements of a contract
about it, and therefore repealable at pleasure;
that the same has been repealed, to the extent
indicated In my communication, by the con-
stitution of 1874, In support ofthe view, that
it Is II repeaable statute. study of the opin-
ion by Judge Cody, In East Saginaw Manu-
featuring company vs.. East Saginaw. 10 Mich,
25a. and the authorities cited. Is respectfully
Reports, p. ~. That taxes are not adebt. and
there can therefore be nothing in the doctrine
OF set Off etc; see City of Augusta vs.. North
t57 Me. 1922 Ind American Reports 55. Tren-
holm VS., Charleston 3 5. &. 347. Ii might, by
some. without reflection, be insisted that our
own court, State vs., Rves, l2-72l, has set
tied the question. Not so. The decision in
that ease was c'nnentiy proper. The statute
above alluded to stood In full force. Had it
been repealed, then the question involved
would have been before 1t. There Is but little
analogy between this question and the points
involved in the case of Woodruffvs. Trapnall
The controlling points In that case were. that
the state owlHd the entire stock of the bank,
furnished the capital, and received the profits
besides this. the undertaking to receive the
notes was Incorporated in the charter. 1t
will be remembered that four of the Judges
dissented In that case, and to my mind the
dissenting arguments are full oflogic. il not
law. 1t is competent for the state to say and
prescribe to the countless how much taxes
shall he levied, how they shall be paid. md
when. etc. They can only be levied and col
lscted by authority Of and in the manner pre-
scribed by the legislature The legislature
might provide that county taxes could be dis
charged with grain; If SO, could not the stat
ute be repealed, and the citizens be required
to pay something else? The county creditor
Is under no obligation in the wide world to
tahc ot'iP-Hc may pDtall his aitoWaIlcc anu
there rest lie is under no obligation to pay
his taxes in scrip, His debt cannot be dis
charged by taxes due from him, or any ythng
else save legal tender In short the act Is
only directory to the county officials. and
possesses no more OF the elements of a con :
tract than would n statute directing that
county taxes might be discharged in corn
The man who might raise corn while statute
of the latter Kind was in force, might as well
Claim the privilege Of payin in corn after its
repeal, as the scrip holder to pay in scrip after
repeal Of the statute Of 1916. Both corn and
| scrip arc procured without reference to such
statutes. Had we no statute of the kind. the
amount OF scrip would not be at all diminish
ed or lcssened in value. 1t is the promise and
obligation to pay the dollar, that gives to 1t Its
value.
The obligation Of the county to pay an al
lowance made, is to pay in legaltenaer funds
and SO long AS there is no. legislation provid-
ing for payment otherwise and full provision
for paying thus, the obligation ofthe contract
10 not violated.
Yours, &C.,
JORDAN f. CRAvENs.