St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-08-15
TE8E LETTER OF THE LAW.
Five Opinions by Attorney General
Hahn.

Attorney General Hahn yesterday sent
out five interpretations of the law, in an
swer to attorneys from as many counties.
Thomas II. Quinn, attorney of Rice county,
wrote as follows: AN application was
made to the probate court under section 1S1,
chapter "a. general statutes 1878, as amended
by section 1. chapter 81, laws 1881. for
guardianship of child. At the last session
of the legislature a state school was eStab-
liShed, and the question is raised whether
or not the former law is in operation. Mr..
Quinn asks if this law is still in force, and
if the child can be sent to an orphan asylum
under the law mentioned. The attorney
general believes the law still in effect. He
says:
The law in question provides that any Or
phan asylum incorporated under the laws of
this state may take and have charge and con-
troll of any destitute children in the state
whose parents are dead, etc. The amendment
of 1881 makes provision for the judges of
probate appointing any such asylum a guar
dian during. the minority of any such desti-
tute minor. The provision under which the
state school is established would not prevent
an orphan asylum, with the consent of the
county commissioners, from being appointed
guardian, under the provisions of the law re-
terred to, of any child not in that school.
AS to the second question the attorney
general believes the intention of the law is
to enable incorporated aSylums to become
the legal guardian of any child of the class
named.
In answer to E. p. Petersen, county at
tOrney of Meeker county, Gen. Hahn writes
that it would be perfectly proper for the
comfy commissioners to allow him eX-
pCnses incurred in necessary travel outside
his county lines.
Warren Wilkins of Hubbard wrote asking
as to the legality Of a certain purchase
ordered by the school directors on vote Of
Il to Q at a district meeting, the question
being whether less than a twO-thirds vote
could legally be respected. After citing
numerous authorities and going over the
law at considerable length the attorney
general says:
My conclusion is that the officers of the
district had no authority to issue an order
PAYABLE at such future date. with interest
against funds not yet voted, to be raised by
the district mentioned, having been first duly
directed to do so by a two-thirds vote of the
legal voters present, and voting at legally
called meeting of the district, and that the
order III question is void.
REDUCING ASSESSMENT.
Ira w. Castle, attorney of Washington
county, stated: 1.-The st. CroiX Lumber
company of this place made application to
the county board of equalization Of this
county at their last meeting for reduction
Of valuation of the personal property of
the company under the provisions of sec
ton 4 Of the general statutes of 1873
Would you give me your opinion as to their
power under that section, whether or not
they can, upon the application of a resident
OF this county, reduce the value of this
personal property?
The attorney general says:
think not. Subdivision limits the au-
thority of the board TO complaints of parties
being non-residents of the town or district in
which the property is assessed. The board is
a creature of the statute. and has such pow
erS only as are conferred, and can only act in
such cases and under such circumstances as
the law provides. The theory of equalization
of personal property seems to be TO refer to
the town board all such applications of resi-
dents, and by inference exclude the county
board from the consideration of those cases.
The remedy of the company is under section
liz.
3. G. Reynolds, county attorney of Fari-
bault county, wrote:
W. & Son were assessed on personal pro-
perry in May, 1884, for 81, 440; the December
following they sold the property; this year
there was levied in their assessment a road
tax. Who is to payit?
Gen. Hahn replied:
W. & Son, so far as personal propertv is
concerned, in this state, the tax is imposed
On the person of the owner the property
being resorted to only for the purpose of
Rscertaining the amount of the tax and the
owner, not the property, pays the tax The
amount of road tax thus to w. g. Son on this
year to pay is, under the law, determined by
she amount OF personal property assessed to
them the preceding May, and whether they
owned the identical property assessed or had
disposed of it at the time of the levy cuts no
figure. For general purposes property is
assessed as of May 1, but the tax is not levied
until November following. The fact that
the property assessed had, in the mean
time, changed hands, would scarcely be a
good defense. as TO such tax