The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-08-31
INCONSISTENT AND DISHONEST.


The legal luminary who sheds such
light as he is able to impart on the
solons of the city. made two recon-
mendations to the council last Tuesday
night. One was that a quit claim
deed be given to citizen whose prop
erty had been sold for delinquent
sprinkling tax The other was that a
claim from another citizen for the re-
funding Of money paid under protest
for sprinkling tax he not granted. 'Fbe-
cause he considered the city not legally
under obligation to return the same. -
Let us consider these recommendations
in their bearings one upon the other.
1T will be necessary. to briefly ex-
plain the situation. A number of citi-
zens Joined in testing before the courts
the legality of the sprinkling tax ordin-
ance, being confident that it was in
valid because in excess of the charter
ed powers of the city. 1t was so plain
case that a competent attorney ought
to have advised the city not to press
the matter but repeal the ordinance.
However, it was pushed, and finally a
decision was obtained which was ap-
pealed to the supreme court Of the ter
ritory and the ordinance was declared
Illegal.
The collection of sprinkling taxes in
1891 and 1892 was not enforced against
the citizens who had the case in court.
But in 1893 it was enforced so far as
that year was concerned, and the pres
ent city attorney urged its enforce
ment as the treasurer will testify.
But even then the delinquent sums for
1891 and 1892 were not collected.
Most of the people who had joined In
the litigation paid the sprinkling tax
for 1893 under protest, being legally adj
vised to protest if they paid it. Others,
however, refused to pay and permitted
their property to be sold, feeling GER
tain they would win the suit. The
case went against the city, the collec-
ton of the AK was illegal and the col
lection of the present years sprinkling
tax was stopped.
Now comes the city attorney and adj
vises the council to return the prop
erty which was sold for the collection
ment of the illegality of the collection.
but at the same time advises that
body to keep the money which was
filched from the taxpayers under their
protest, and the council apparently &C
cepts that advice as sound and legal.
Now, if the property of which GER
tain taxpayers were robbed should be
returned, the money taken on the same
principle and for the same purpose
should also be returned. If not, why
not? There is an essential difference
between the case of the people who
tested the ordinance and who paid the
money under compulsion and under
protest, and that of those people who
did not dispute the legality of the or
dinance and paid the tax voluntarily.
That difference we presume will not
be disputed.
Hhere is the city council giving back
the property illegally obtained, but
holding on to the money also illegally
obtained. If the attorney has not a
sufficient sense Of honor and fair deal
ing, to say nothing of legal light, to
advise the same justice in both cases
when the equities are Identical, can
the city council afford to occupy the
position of exercising might over right?
We look upon the retention of that
money, illegally collected without
doubt, under threat of selling the prop
the same light as the act of a robber
in refusing to return goods or money
which he had taken by force or threats
of violence The protesting htigants
who paid their money under compul-
sion are entitled to its return just as
much as are the property owners who
are to have their quit claim deeds.
We hope those city councillors who
have any sense of honor, justice and
consistency, will reconsider the adop-
ton of the second and conflicting re-
commentator of the city attorney,
and will not retain their present false
position. OF one thing they may be
assured. The matter will not rest
where it is now. If the illegally col
lected money is not returned to those
who paid it under protest, the matter
will go again into the courts.
We are aware of the provision of
law under which it is expected that
this payment may be evaded. But the
proceedings will not be exactly as has
perhaps been anticipated. They will
bring another defeat for the city, with
the stigma upon the council that its
members countenanced the retention
of money which lawfully and rightly
belongs to certain citizens, and conduct
which in common, blunt parlance is
nothing less than robbery. Better
take sounder and more honest advice.