Vicksburg weekly herald., 1878-04-26
OpInIOAsFthe AssOrney-Geaernl A

opinion oEthe Ass0Fneys&eaePnl n
UPON TIE ACT AUTHORIzIEG BOARDS OF
SUPERVISORY TO APPOINT DELIHoURNI
TAX coLLEcToRs-THE ACT UEoOHsFI
TUTI0NAL.
0FFIcR AUDITOR PUB &c AccOURTsl
JACKSON, MISS April 10, ldTS,
To the Chancery Clerk and President o
the Board OF Supervisors Of - County
l respectfully direct your attention
10 the subjoiued opinion Of Attorney
General CAtchings, 10 reference to Sec
lion 81, of an Act In relation TO publ,
revenue, providing for the appointment
Of delinquent tax collector. Under
this ruling OF the Attorney. G General
ssid Section 90 is uncons,i utional and
void, and you cannot act under II a,
directed but Sheriffs are required tc
collect delinquent taxes o. heretofore
as though such section had not been en-.
sc,ed Respectfully,
5. GwIV, Auditor.
ATTORNEY GENERALS oRpIcE,l
JAcK:oN, April 10, 1875
Hon. 8. Gwin, Auditor Of Public Ac
counts.
SIR-After q careful consideration
OF the question submitted by you, 90 to
the power OF the Boards OF Super viserS
under section 81 Of the revenue law oil
1873, to appoint the Sheriff. to the of.
fee Of delinquent Tax Collector, l have
concluded that the law under consid-
GRAFTON is palpsbly Ia violation Of the
Constitution oil the State, and there.
fore void. It has been decided By the
Supreme Court lhSt the SheriHs are,
by the Constitution, charged with the
duty Of collecting taxes, and they,
therefore, have q property In the Office
and its functions and emoluments, OF
which the collection Of taxes forms no
uncomfortable part, and the Act under
discussion seeks TO deprive them Of IL.
French We. the State 81, Mississippi
T65. This clearly is not within the
Legislative power. The Constitution
Of North Carolina, In this respect, 10
siml ar to ours. The Legislature OF
that State authorized the appointment
by County Commissioners OF a
Tax Collector. The Supreme Court
In King vs. Hunter, IS N. c. sos,
held the Act unconstitutional because
il deprived the Sheriff OF part OF the
emolumenis OF his Office, pertaining
to II under the Constitution, and for
the additional reason that, by the Con-
stitution, the officer to collect taxes
Chat 10 the Sheriff. was to be elected
bv the people, while the Act made the
office appOintive. Tue case Of the
State ex rel Kennedy vs.. Bruser, 26
Wis, 4l2, arose under the Constitution
Of Wisconsin, which is also similar to
ours Il did not define The duties OF
the Sheriff, but II was sAid by the
Court that the trainers of the Constiiu.
tl0n he'd reference to the office, with
the generally recognized duties at
tached 10 1t al the time II was adopted,
and one OF these was the keeping OF
the county jail. The question arose
upon an Act Of the Legislature taking
away this right to keep the county jail,
aud the Court held that The Act was
unconstitutional and void. These
caaes were cited and approved by our
Supreme Court In the case Of French
vs. the State Ubi supra.
l do not see how the conclusion can
be escaped, In view OF these authorities,
that the Legislature had no power to
take the collection Of taxes, or any part
of them, away from the Sherifs. II
makes no difference that the taxes are
delinquent; they are, nevertheless,
taxes, aud must be collected by the
Sherifs. There iS no difference In the
nature of taxes owed by q delinquent,
and those paid by prompt citizen In
either case, the sole consideration 10 the
duty we all owe 10 contribute our pro.
portion to the support OF the Govern
ment. To admit that there is any legal
between the power OF
the Legislature TO take from the
Sheriff. the collection of taxes general.
ly, aud the collection OF such as are
delinquent, would be to admit their
power TO practically take from the Of
fee oil emoluments arising from that
source, and TO take from the people the
right under the Constitution to have
their taxes collected by the person
elected by them for that purpose. The
had as much power to cay
that all taxes not paid by the frat Mon
day in March, should be 90 deemed,
and II they have the right 10 have de.
linQuent taxes collected by person ap.
pointed for that purpose, II is easy TO
see that by go fixing the date of dein.
quency, they could practically evade
and defeat the Constitution,
II is always q diSagreeable and deli
cate matter to declare an Act of the
Legislature unconstitutional, but where
the violation is clear, my duty as the
law officer OF the State, to protect the
Constitution, as far as l can, is also
clear. l, therefore, decide, that 90
much Of the revenue law as undertakes
10 authorize the appointment of delln.
luent Tax Collectors, is In violation OF
the Constitution Of the State, and
therefore, void.
have the honor to be, very respect.
fully, &C. CATCMNGs,
AttOrney.Gensral.