The Butler weekly times., 1889-05-15
FORTY CENTS LEVY.

Tie county court at us regular
Nav term, held last week. made q
lew II 30 cents Oh the 500 valua
ton for county purposes. the limit
prescribed by the constitution. 1t
has been the practice heretofore to
make a levy Of 20 cents, or only one
half the constitutional limit, leaving
the other half to be used at the dis
cretion Of the township. 1t has
been practically demonstrated III the
past few years that 20 cents levy is
wholly Inadequate to meet the ex
penses of the county. The court
was running in debt from year to
year with no prospects Of betterlnG
their condition. House bill No.
344 introduced by Mr.. NewberIy
and passed at the present session Of
the Legislature, permits the township
to ley l. cents on the 800 valua
ton, The state levy was reduced
10 cents. SO il will be seen that the
taxes will only be increased ) cents,
and still give the county the full
amount that has formerly been Ia
ken by county and township.
The following are the opinions of
Prosecuting Attorney {. I. Boxley,
ana Attorney General Of the State.
John II. Wood. III reference to the
legality OF such action OF INC court:
Butler, Mo May 9th, 1889.
To the Hon. Bates County Court
Gentlemen:-In compliance with
your request asking my written
opinion upon the following question
tc-wit What is the greatest
amount the county court can levy
for county purposes III any one year:
| have the honor to reply that Sec
II, of Art. 10, of our State ConSti
tuition, provides among other things,
that FOR county proposes the ;nnu
al rate III counties having six mil
lion dollars and under ten million
dollars, said rate shall not exceed
forty cents on the 800 valuation" :"
The above applies directly to Bates
county. My first conclusion upon
examination of said section was that
forty cents on the 500 valuation
was all that could be levied, includ-
ing township &c, ,or one year. Not
being satisfied with my conclusion
III the premises. aud not having the
reports and other facilities al my
command for a more thorough ex-
animation of the question:, through
our Hon. Representative, Capt.
New5eny, I respectfully asked the
opinion OF Attorney General John
Nj. Wood. IN response he says that
III the absence of any decision of
courts higher than our state courts
it would seem that forty cents WAS
the highest rate that could be legal
| lv levied for all purposes contem-
plated, but he further informs me.
(and his letter is hereto attached for
your information) that Judge Brew
er, I. $. circuit Judge in his inter
probation of said section of our con.
stitution, in an opinion rendered at
Jefferson City, April %, 1889, in
case of I. S. ex rel Huidekoper vs..
Macon county, decided that town
ship taxes .rere not taxes for county
purposes. within the meaning OF
said section. This being the high
est authority at hand interpetating
said section, l think there can be no
doubt that your Hon. Court have the
legal authority to levy in Bates
county. forty cents on the hundred
dollars valuation for county purpos.
es alone
I attach hereto 'sHouse Bill 344,
relating to township organization
fixing the rate of township taxation
at fifteen cents on the 800 valua
ton, which, I am informed by Capt
| Newberry, has become law.
| Resp'y Submitted.
| CALVIN F. BoxLEY.
Prosecuting Atty.
Hon. JSo. B. NEwBERRY, House of
Representatives. !
Jefferson CITY, Mo.
Dear Sir:-In response to the in
quiry of Mr.. Calvin F. Boxley, in
his letter to you Of date April 4th.
! viz. What is the greatest amour
the county court can levy for coun
, ty purposes in any one year7" have
! the honor to reply that in my opin
ion the limitation is fixed by Sec. IL
] Art. 10, of the constitution. How
T ever. Judge Brewer, c. S. circui
I Judge in an opinion rendered at JEFF
erson City, on April %, 1887. in {
S. ex rel Huidekoper VS.. Macol
county. No. 1892 held that town
\ -,