The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-11-30

are given, either to an individual or to the
public, 1t is obvious that somewhat less
arbitrary and inflexible test should be re-
sorted to.
BY section lis of the act in question in
these cases, the existence of the old school
district comprising what is now the dis
districts OF Salt Lake City, and also the
terms OF Office of the trustees of said dis
trlcts were continued until July l, 1890; so
tnat the taxes voted by these districts upon
the old districts the time when
former statutes prior to them
selves had been levied under the
ceased to exist, and as the proceedings for
the collection of the taxes, after the return
OF the assessment roll by the assessor, do
not depend upon the statute repealed, these
cases come within the rule laid down in tie
New Jersey case above referred to. But
the legislature did not leave the question of
Its intention as to the collection of these
taxes to construction, but in express terms
provided that the repeal of the old law
should not have the effect to invalidate
taxes levied by the old districts. Section
155 provides as follows, viz: ''Nothing in
this act shall be construed as intended to
abate, impair or invalidate any levy of
taxes or assessments therefor which has
been or is now being made in any school
district or county in this territory, and all
such assessments shall be continued and
completed and the taxes levied shall be col
lected in the manner provided by law.n
If the legislature had power to pro-
vide that the school houses of the old dis
trlcts, or Other property or money on hand,
should become the property of the new dis
trlct, no good reason can be given why it
could not provide that taxes levied by the
old districts, but not yet collected, should
be collected and become the property of the
new district. The authorities are all to the
effect that municipal corporations, or quasi
corporations, sucn as towns, cities, counties
or other political subdivisions. are but the
creatures OF legislative power, and subject
to Its control. These corporations may be
enlarged, diminished, divided, abolished, or
two or more may be consolidated as the leg
lslature may deem best. DILLON on municipal
Corporations, Sec. So. Upon division of
such corporations the legislature may APP
portion the common property, and the
common burdens as to them shall seem rea-
sonable and equitable, and may even go to
the extent of providing that certain por-
tion Of the property of the ole. town shall &c
to the new corporation. Laramie county
VS.. Albany county ct i.,93 q. S 307 Dillon
on Municipal Corporations, Sec. 63)
In the case of Laramie county VS.. AL
bany county, above referred to, the SUI
preme court of the United States, while
admitting that injustice and hardship may
be suffered IN some cases, say the question
Is legislative and not judicial one, and
that the power to prescribe the rule By
which division of the property of the
old town shall be divided is
incident 30 the power TO make
the Ldivision. Further on il
that case ii said: Regulations upon thu
subject may be prescribed by the legisla
ture, but if they omit to make any pro
visions in that regard, the presumption
must be that they did not consider that am
legislation in the particular case was neces
sary"
In that case the county of Laramie wa
largely in debt, and the legislature created
two additional counties out of a portion O
its territory, Albany and Carbon coun
ties-taking away more than thirds O
its territory and taxable property withou
making any provision that the new coun
ties should pay any portion of this debt
Laramie county paid the debt and brough
suit against the two new counties to com
pei them to pay their just proportion O
such Indebtedness. The territorial courts
held that it could not recover, and the su
preme court of the United States affirmed
that decision.
In the present case the legislature, hav
ing the power to abolish the old district
same territory, and to transfer the proper
ty or the old districts to the new one a
their successor, am of the opinion that j
could also transfer unsolicited taxes levie
by the old districts to the new district, tn
money to be used for the same purposes TO
which they were levied, and partly for tn
benefit OF the districts that levied them.
But it is contended that this holdin
, would violate the rule that taxes must b
uniform, and be borne equally by all with
the territory to be taxed. 1t is undoubte6
{ ly the established rule that all laws for tn
collection OF revenue must provide tina
taxes shall be equal and uniform, but tn
) statute under consideration Is not con
primarily for the raising of revenue:an
the inequality complained of is but an Incl
: dent of the abolition of the old district
, and their consolidation into new distric
The people Of the old districts levied thes
a taxes upon themselves, and they wer
uniform in the several districts whe
l levied, and the people will have no more t
D pay than if their districts had not bee
: abolished. No fraud or illegality is allege
t in the levy or assessment. Owing to th
/ advance in value of real estate the lev
produced more than was expected whe
3 the levy was made, but a rise or fall j
| values is no reason for not paying vail
D tax.
4 Without dwelling further on the subjec
? l am of the opinion that the taxes in cues
: ton are legal and valid, and that these al
r plications to enioin their collection shout
g be denied
Judge Anderson afterwards allowed
f temporary injunction in favor only of I'll
: parties to the suit, restraining the collectt
from collecting the taxes assessed again
Q them until the matter has been decided
d the supreme court, to which an appeal b;
/ been taken.