Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-08-19

hnN lAli 'h'n NhluAllon Tor tht sAino, ana
that The County Collector be requested to
furnish tho not amount OF lax to lie
collected from each district In 1900, Tor
tho purpose Of ascnrt,ining the Total
amount ~ school property In tho city aud
tho taxes to be collected. In order that q
uniform ratio of tax can be- computed,
which II would be necessary TO assess, II
desired, TO pay Tor this property; and
that this committee be authorized TO
procure FROM the city Assessor tho total
assessed valuation ~ properly iu tho
city, showing the amount Ia each Of the
old school districts, from which io de-
termino tho proper proportion eHch
district should have supplied under u
uniform tax rate Ne above suggested.
Sccond-'rhnt each district be then
charged or credited, ~ the case may be,
with the difference between the amount
actually turned over and what It's pro-
portion would be, on the basis Of said
uniform tax.
Third-That the noxt session OF the
Legislature be putitioned by this board
to franc such u law "a viii enable US 10
correct the inequalities found to exist ho-
tween tho various districts, and that the
clork " tbis board be requested TO fur
nish copy OF these resolutions TO tho
outgoing trustees, and TO the press.
lsignedl
GronoE W. sScw, ! Audit.
subsequently,, nj meeting OF the
finance commiIle-date not certain,be'
cause no record was made, but prior "
the litigation no TO THESE tsxes--the
chairman Of that committee submitted
tho proposition TO cover the In.
qualities VI those taxes by the Issue OF
bonds and refund to the people pay.
Ing the tax, ~ was subsequently, done;
uut at fret the surpaaii.ga was thAl nii
would pay the taxes and all would be re-
paid, without contention or wastciJl
struggles.
Amer tho litigation was practically
completed, this suggestion was 70.
newell 10 the board direct AMI WIS
adopted; but those who were vlctofi-
Gus In ,ue suits declined ~ meet the
boafd'A oyeTturos.
ApTurvntly obiiyious OF tho iacta Of
this 6onfi, or doubtful 10 i,a ability 10
procure relief, tho victorious suits in 10.
sl-tauce 10 the collection Of these
special school district taxes 81 1890 ba.
gan. There were several Ut thom, and
they varied IA form, tut all tended
10 the one Iurios 81 having these
taxts declared void. This Board was
obliged 10 defend or zee the cases 20 by
doisult. 1t therefore appeared In sup
port Of the validity OF thu school taxes.
When these were finally declared TO
be valid, the cnurt declaring thut the
percentages levied should have been
collected on the Toll OF 1850, the ques-
tiou was whether We should ask a
mandate for such collection OF quiet
strife. The mandate. proposition was
deemed utterly impu.ctlcable; though
the court declared thgt the taxes should
be collected ON the aasess ment roll Of
1850, There was no practicable way TO
make such collection, therefore, no
further steps were taken. A portion uf
those who had fought the taA resisted
collection ifom the beginning. A. to
them the result was oluAi; they had
nothing ~ recover. But n large amount
had been paid under protest to tho
collector, and the payers claimed
their due. The sum OF $4,000
had been paid over by the collec-
tor 10 the treasurer OF this board
Of taxes collected without protest. In.
Asmuch as some Of the Taxpayers had
paid nothing ON their taxes aud Others
were about 10 receive back the amounts
they had paid, the Board OF Education
consiieied II but fair to alsD repay;
and the Legislature was asked to gire
authority 30 10 DO. This was readily
accorded, and the board repaid TO
every applicant on It's lists In full Ms
the applicant applied.
But here arose AN Injustice and Inn
position. IL was found thnt on maxi
ing w tho list on which the refund
40. L.. "A 10. sNu h..
order OF the court, an arbitrary date
had been selected (by whom does not
appearl, and that all who as appeared
In the collectors books, had paid be.
fore that given date were assumed to
have paid the money that was turned
over 10 tho Bonrl's Treasurer; while
all WHO had paid after that date were
assumed 70 have paid the money In
litigation, or under protest.
The lists were made up accordingly
by the collector; all who paid their
taxes December 10Th, 1880, aud before,
were put In tho list who should receive
their money back from the Board;
those who paid after that date were put
In the list who were to receive their IT.
fund from the clerk Of tho court, who
had been made receiver for that pur-
pose. Those ON the latter list had been
taxed about 3 per cent. OF the full
am unit for court costs and In addition
10 per cent. tor attorney fees. Ii this
ley Of IL per cent. Ia all had been
..nply ON those who appeared us Iii.
gant, nothing would need 10 be said;
but, In fact, the lists on which this
levy was rlaie Included many persons
who had not In any way appeared Us
litigants, and who had no desire to
appear Us such; and increased more
than double the amount Involved In
the claims OF those who desired TO
be represented In tho suits, and
consequently the fees Involved IN the
ods or allowing the same. We are In.
formed that tho total am. INT actually
In controversy la the suits that en-.
tailed this court reiunding wins lees
than $4,000, aud that the gross amount |
carried Ia the claims Of all who finally |
consented that appearance might be |
made for them In court was about |
Sl3, 600 even by the attornoys' claims. |
Yet the bssis OF the taxing VI costs aud |
attorneys fees was some $50, coo and |
this was reckoned rom, because II was
the total sum at Issue, " neither litigants
appeared or not. We are informed |
anu believe that the representatives NJ |
much more than half OF tho amount
would have much preferred that NO
notice should have been tglen Of them
IN the court procedure, preerrlng 10
rely on this boaId TO do tuem Justice,
without waste or contention.
But another unjust feature IN this
matter Ieinnins to be- stated. BY Iea-