Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-04-27
THE FRUIT TREE TAX.
Orchardists Allowed S1OO Exemp ton for
Every Acre Planted to Fruit.

In response to an official inquiry from
Manuel Valdez, county assessor, the dis
trict attorney for the lst judicial district
has rendered the following opinion OF
special interest to all fruit growers:
Dear Sir: Responding to your INQUIRY
as to whether or not section 28O9 OF the
Compiled Laws OF New Mexico, 1884, has
been repealed by section of an act en-
titled "An act providing funds for the
AID and 43d fiscal years and for other pur-
poses." approved Feb. 20, 1891, and
known as the appropriation bill II have
to say that l am of the opinion that such
is the case.
Section 2SO9, by its terms, gives to eyery
person who shall plant fruit trees and
suitably cultivate the same, an exemption
from taxation of 800 per acre for ten
years after each acre has been so plant.
ed.
Section of the act above mentioned
specifically names the classes of property
which are exempted from taxation, and
this class is not found in the list
Notwithstanding, however, the fact that
the section has been repealed, it is nv
opinion that those persons who have
'aken advantage of the law giving the
exemption, and have gone on and in good
faith planted fruit trees, can not now be
taxed upon the same until the expiration
of the period named in the statute, name-
ly ten years.
The act of February 26 only operates
from the date of it's passage and approval
and only affects those who in the future
shall engage in this industry.
In my opinion every person who plant
ed fruit trees and claimed the benefit of
the exemption prior to February 26, 1891,
entered into contract with the territory
from which it can not recede.
This law was an induCement TO all
people to engage in the fruit industry, and
at large expense many have planted
arge orchards, relying upon the exemp.
ION. The law was help to them. and
clearly was intended as such; at the ex.
oiration of the exemption period an
richard would be in full bearing and
ould then very we'll bear its proportion
tie burden of taxation. The law was i
wise one, for it materially assisted in the {
ullding up of one of our most important, I
emunerative and growing industries, i
nd great many will deplore its repeal 9
t this time. 4
After person has planted an acre of Ii
md with fruit trees, and had otherwise Il
omplied with the law governing the 4
anne, the territory had then received its II
)nslderatlon for the contract which had Il
cen entered into between it and the II
dividual.
This question had been practically de. q
ded by our own supreme court in the
se OF Santa Fe county VS.. N. M. & S.P.
abroad company, which was case in.
living the question of the company's III
,ht to the Six years exemption from &c
xatlon, as provided by the laws of the W,
'ritory. ~,
In that case the court held that when ",
9 company took advantage of the pro. o'
,ions of the law and in good faith con. sh
ucted its railroad, the terms of the no
ntract had been complied with, and in W
accepted by the contracting parties. on
10 court very wisely says that such oil
!RRta.e 8as ,hlsutsgdi ths tsy1it iy iry even if 50
v law impairing the obligation it had
Ide.
quote from the opinion of the court
or the territory now to attempt to
,de the obligations of this compact is TIL
ther wise nor prudent as measure Of
bile policy. No state can afford to i'm.
II its good faith and credit in this way.
at honesty is the best policy ap- q
es with even greater force to states than -
q
Under these circumstances, to claim g.,
- 10 n