Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-03-30
RETURNING TAX CERTIFICATES.


~ Retrospective. IA = "A I
Last winter the legislature passed q law
permitting tax purchaser In certain cases to
petition the county board to have his certlfi-
cate declared void within principle covered
by some decision of the supreme court. II the
county commissioners find the facts
setaa,forth to be true, & then the
law II provided the case should be
referred to the state auditor and attorney gen.
eral, .aad the finding Of the commissioners
confirmed by them, then the money to be re-
funded to the tax purchaser. The wording OF
the law is rather ambiguous upon the very
vital question as to whether the act was retro
spective as we'll as prospective, or, in other
words, whether it applied to all certificates In
existence, or only to such as should be
issued after the passage Of the act The
question was so important, involving; should
the intentof the law be decided to be retro.
spsctive, at least temporary bankruptcy in
many OF the older counties of the state, that
State Auditor Braden referred the matter to
Attorney General Hahn for his opinion as to
| the 81 proper . construction to be given
tho lawn JGen.5ai Hahn after care
| fully examining Lathe provisions of the
| law, aud applying to them well recognized
| principles Of construction, decides that " Is
prospective and not Retrospective. So much
| is involved I'M the question. affecting as 1t
does eyary countp I'M the state. 0but more es.
peciaIly the older statessi The GLOBE gives
| the opinion of Gen. Hahn In full as follows
h fi1Gua ssisf g. ST. PAUL, March 90, 1882. ).
Hon.sN. w. Braden, State Auditor: gEisss ii
| Dear Sir:s Myattention has been called by
lyou to- section 81, chapter 10, general laws of
I 1851, and my opinion requested as to whether
| said section Is to- have o Retrospective or a
lrprO6 DectiVe Orerations OIL is EEfGt
r. Ont supreme court in the case of Brown rs.
| Delaney. % Mimi. S4S, SAYS that ssunlessb the
| contrary clearly appears to have been intended
Lby the legislature, statutes should be con.
stzued to be prospective in their scope and
| operation, aud not Retrospective. " This La Ia
J familiar canon of CONSTRUCTION ISL sal IsiEv
f. Does It then clearly appear that this section
| was inteEded by the Legislature to have q ret
respective operation? ct seems to me that il
| does not but that on the CONTRARY it does ap
pear from the ,entirec happier that the scope
and operation OF this section was intended te
be prospective. s1sai gEtaDo2 9aa s9.lst
| Lam OF opinion that the CLAUSE whenever
the holder OF any tax certificate OF eaie' re-
| fers to acertifcate OF sale issued in the III
ture latter the ststute goes into eftecf, ane
not to certificates issued prior TO lis passage
/ This view is not only strengthened but az ],
seems to me, conclusively established BY rel
! erence to section ~ OF the same chapter. Ihif
last section, Like the section under eonsidera
tioH, was enacted in the interest OF the pur
1 chaser at. q tax sale, and provides an easy anG
/ inexpensive method by which such purchaser
! may, in given case, have the amount In
vested by him in a tax certificate refunded. i
starts out with the expression "that wher
lands have been sold for taxes" etc., which
to my mind indicates fully as clear an iDten