The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-07-28
sRRINkLING TAX INVALID.


The Supreme Court of Utah rendered
a number of important decisions on
Friday Among them was one ON the
long contested sprinkling tax suit. 1t
viii be remembered that a number of
taxpayers, who objected to the manner
in which that tax was levied as well as
the Unequal manner in which the sprin-
king work was done, united to test the
question whether the city had power
under the charter to assess any special
tax at all for this purpose.
1t took a long time to obtain a deci-
sion. Judge Zane decided against the
withstanding the strong arguments and
numerous precedents that were cited
Iagainst a special sprlnkling tax. His
decision occasioned much surprise
among many Of his admirers, who con-
sidered him sound on general PROPOSE
tons Of law. But the judge usually
supported the city, when he could do so,
Ias he believed, consistently
The case has gone before the Supreme
Court of the territory and has received
thorough treatment. Both sides have
had the opportunity of presenting their
strong reasons, and the people have pre-
vailed. The sprinkling tax ordinance is
declared invalid. The gist of the opin-
ion delivered by Chief Justice Merritt,
which was unanimously sustained by
the court, will be found in the appropri-
ate column in this issue of The Herald.
We have always held that the city
had no more power to assess special
tax for sprinkling the streets than for
repairing or lighting them. And we
have always objected to the foot 'front.'
age plan OF assessment We therefore
feel satisfied at the decision of the
court which appears to US both legal
and just
The contest has been going on since
1881. a number of the taxpayers re-
fused to pay hte sprinkling tax that
year and in 1892, bat weakened in 1893
after the decision of Judge Zane and
paid the tax last year. Others did so
under protest, as advised by counsel for
the taxpayers. A few refused to pay
and permitted their property to be sold.
The two latter classes will recover
their money, and the city will have to
clear the title of the property for the
owners whose places were sold for
sprinkling taxes.
Mr.. Orson H. Petit of the Ninth
Ward has been the active mover in
this defence of the peoples rights, and
he and the attorneys who maintained
that the city was wrong, and made
such strong and vigorous fight, are
entitled to credit for their persever-
ance and persistence and their con-
vincing arguments.
In discussing the merits of the
sprinkling matter, yesterday, The Her
aid referred to a recent change in the
law. We find on investigation that the
sprinkling tax bill was not passed by
the late Republican legislature, though
introduced and intended to be pushed
| through. Therefore the city is now
without any authority to assess or col
lect solitary cent by way of special
tax for street sprinkling. This will be
good news to the people who have had
so much cause for complaint as to I'M
equal work and neglect on the part of
the sprinkling cart men, and to all who
have objected to the payment of the
tax
Quite sum will have to be refund
ed to the property owners who paid
the tax under protest The rest, we
fear, will not be able to get back the
amounts they have paid into the city
| treasury. This is an important de-
cision, for henceforth. until more
power is given to the city by charter,
the expense of sprinkling the streets
will have to come out of the general
funds of the municipality