Southwest-sentinel. [volume] (Silver City, N.M.) 1883-189?, 1893-07-18

49, NNAAMA ~ NNNNN
under an alleged illegal levy, came up
before Judge Fall at Las Cruces last
week. The board Of County commits
s]ioners was represented by A. II. Harllee
and j. A. Ancheta, Lockhart was repre-
sented by Bail anu Ashenfelter and some
Of the taxpayers, among them being
Joseph Il. Sheridan, we're repre-
sented by r. p. Barnes who interviewed
and asked that the taxes which had
been paid by them over and above the
amount Of the legal levy should be re-
paid to them. Two demurrers we're ar
gued, both OF which we're sustained by
the Judge. One was the demurrer Of
Lockhart TO the declaration Of the Terri
tory in the suit and the other was the
demurrer Of the Territory to the inter
v%ention Of the taxpayers. During the
hearing the point as to the legality Of
the levy was brought up and the judge
decided that the County could levy no
more than two aud a half mills on the
dollar for general purposes. This dec
ision disposed OF a point which has been
in controversy for some time but which
nobody expected TO be decided any other
way, in fact Sheriff Laird has been col
lecting taxes for weeks on the basis Of the
two and a half mill levy, or a total in
this county Of 1. T15.
This decision will prevent the future
levy Of more than two and a half mills
for general County purposes and will
bring in a revenue Of about $4,000
annually to be expended by the County
commissioners. As the Jail expenses
have averaged $4,000 a year for the past
six years, there will either have to be a
reduction in these expenses or there will
not be more than half money enough to
pay the current expenses Of the County
In the future. The expense CT maintain.
ing the Grant County Jail is more than
the cost Of maintaing any other Jail in
New Mexico, and this is partly on
account Of the amount paid to the jailor
and guards which is much larger than
the average paid in other counties.
Heretofore the County has raised ann
ually about $4,000 or.current expenses
and this sum has not been sufficient to
pay the bills allowed by some Of the
boards Of County commissioners, and a
special levy has been made to provide for
the deficiency. The special levy is limit
ed TO half a mill and would amount to
only about $1,000.
The r~etrenchment in County expenses
which has been talked about for so long
a time must now be brought about. The
debt cannot be increased and the tax
levy is limited so that there must be a
limit to the expenditures.
The money which has been collected
over and above the two and a half mills
will have to be returned to the taxpayers
by the commissioners as the law pro-
vides.
The board Of County commissioners
deserve a great deal Of credit for bring
ing the suit to determine the question
which had arisen, so that there might be
no trouble in the future on account OF
illegal tax leHes or excuses for future
collectors to hold indefinitely any part of
the funds collected by them.
The decision of Judge Fall in the mat
ter is too long for publication in this is
sue but the following extracts will suf-
fee to show what the holdings Of the
court we're on the different points at is
sue:
This is an action in the name OF the
Territory against James A. Lockhart,
ex-sherif of the County Of Grant, and
the sureties on his bond, to recover the
amount of twenty-five thousand, four
hundred and thirty-seven dollars, which
it is alleged ID due the Territory and the
County OF Grant for taxes collected and
withheld.
AS to the question of payment under
protest, the court holds that under the
statute law of this Territory, no protest
would be necessary to enable a taxpayer
to recover the amount illegally paid, pro
vided he pursues the statutory method
Of recovery, and whether a protest would
be necessary before a recovery could be
had in another way it is unnecessary for
me to decide now.
The duties Of a collecting officer are
plain. The statute law Of this Territory
prescribing those duties cannot be mis-.
understood by any one. The law as set
tied, by a practically unbroken line of
decisions from almost every supreme
court of the different states, admits of no
contradiction, leaves no ground for argu-
ment. The collector must turn over to
the officer authorized TO receive the
same, all taxes collected by him.
Under the statute, il this money is not
turned over as prescribed, the officer
and his sureties become liable and in
nearly every instance failure is punished
by q severe penalty, such as removal
from office andeven disqualification from
Gerving.
The laws of this Territory are often So
verely criticised, but in the matter Of
tax collections, il IN no other, the differ
emit legislatures have done their duties.
They have recognized the fact that taxa
ton at its least is a burden, and they
have provided absolute, speedy, summary
and not costly means by which the tax
payer should be protected. Failure TO
protect him is not nor has been the fault
Of the laws but Of the officers and courts
whose duty 1t is TO enforce them.
The principle must be settled in this
Territory once for all.
No officer having collected a tax can
arrogate to himself judicial powers which
no law written or unwritten ever CON
terred or was intended to confer upon
him. He must, under penalty of the
law, perform his plain duty and turn the
money over as prescribed by statute. No
man can rise superior to the law in a
republic. When failure is made 70 sur
render the moneys the penalty should be
applied, and in this court no man can