Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-04-13
IRRITATION DIFFICULTIES.


,,om IanI owners In Weber Count
VINO ar, owners Of water rights In u
Hooper irrigating canal. they sui
nit a statement Of facts an
ungcntly rcque,, our opiniin I" y
the legality Of certain alleged pfoceeu
ings.
The Hooper Irrigation Company wa
organized about twenty.three year
ago under the laws Of the Territory
and. hs we understand, has mol berl
Incorporated. The provisions Of u
law have been observed Hitherto an
an annual tax Tor Improvements am
the general expenses of the COMPANY
hasb been levied on all the lands bene
fitted by the canal. This tax ia man'
by law n lien, not upon tho land, bu
upon the Interest Of the taxpayer II
the canal and his right 20 the use 0i
the water flowing therein. The tax Is
levied by tho landholdcrs In the DIS
trici, by q majority vote, at meeting
In December Of each year, notice Of
which must be given at least ten days
preceding.
II appears that nj the annual meet
ing Of the company held last Deoem'
her, the manner Of levying the tax
was changed. Instead Of assessing the
Iandr TO he benefited by the canal ani
IL ditches, the waier right to one acre
was changed TO one share Of ten dollars.
Then an assessment Of sixty.ilvc cents
per share was made on all the capital
stock thus created, and payment was
required by the LIT dry Of April, 1891,
with the provlso that II the asscss'
ment was not thus paid the stock Of
the delinquent would be- sold on tbs
goth Of April.
II IL complained that this Is radical
departure from the system authorized
by law; that no notice Of the contem-
plated change was given to the land
owners; that lands not benefited by
the ditch are assessed by this new plan,
aud thus an injustice Is done 10 the
owners OF such lands; aud that the
whole movement IL Illegal.
II the facts are n stated, we are OF
the opinion that the tax cannot be
legally collected; that the sale Of al
legged stock win nat take away any
right which the landowner may have
In the canal, nor convey to the pur.
chaser any property In the canal
or right 10 the use Of IT,
waters. II Is very clear that the
law contemplates a tax only upon
the lands to 10 benefited by the canal,
aud that II II 10 10 estimated by the
acreage thus benefited, aud not by 10
many shares Of capital stock. This Is
to be seen In Sections Three and Four
Of tho Act under which the company
was organired-Complled Laws, 1855,
Vol. II, y. IS. They relate TO the flrst
meeting OF tho company, II Is true, but
Section Fifteen, which provides for nil
subsequent meetings, says the tax may
be levied "upon the lands benefited,
the landholderr In the district to vote
upon the same IL ne manner horei,,Je.
fore prorided By taig."
twin perhaps be contended that the
iandholdesln regular meeting have the
power TO change all this. hut even n
that DO admitted, II must 10 clear
to every reasonable mind that no such
radical change could be legally effected
without due notice Of such contem.
plated change 10 all the landholders Of |
the irrigation district, no that they
might have tho opportunity OF voting
upon that important question. II no |
such notice was given, We believe the
action Of the meeting, No far az II
changed this manner Of levylng and
assessing the tax, win not hold good,
no matter how many voted for II.
The new method may DO the better
plan. We do not pretend to decide as
to that. II may have been adopted To
cure defect In the old system. But
the whole aim Of IN, law unds,
which uniueorporated irrI,a,Ion
districts aud companies can
b, organIzed. was dir.c,.d 40
making the hand. beneated and ,,.r,
only.the basl. ON which n lax tor w.t.,
service could Ina levied
49,. ,n-,.N
=, sA''o "Av nv, ''''' uo'nihs nut a
su,s ~ ~" W." uec'uo 'n'S question
uenhiVe'y' An inuheuon against the