Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-08-30
IS THE LAW VALID?
The Matter Ol SClO1l T.X.s in
Cli.s
DIscusslnINtmsu parMgcounr


another important naI,,f brffeit Co..
Day. The ursunug,s as 90 whether or
not WON had right to vote uu the
Slate Constitution OF Tor State M .uf.
| Vt the HIST election were concluded lat
event r, and the question was taken
uldet aIvisem,ut by !le court. Today
Ihr sui.- OF Ogden City vs. Daniel
ismcr collector anu the Board OF
EducaiIon sAsiust r, n. HutlUut, col.
lee Or, aud NJ. b.. Blown, assessor, u
Weber county, involving the validity
u the city school tex levy. was taken
~. The attorneys taking patt IN the
Arguments were EW. NanCott, Of Salt
Lake, anu T.. NJ. Allison and II. II.
Whipple, Of Ogden.
The oreuing argument wa. made by
MI NanCOti, on behalf o. tho boari OF
education, aud IN favor Of the validity
ut the law. Mr, vanCot insisted that
'hr decision Of Judge smith was mis-
Hleu iu claiming that the county AZ.
rra.r was given legislative rover.
HIS duty was mptsiy ~ calculate or
levy ihr tax fixed by the board Of
education. AZ 10 the point that there
wr1 40 means provided Tot tquallEiug
school taxes, Mr. NanCot cjatended
that THIS equalization was provided
Tor in the work OF the general board OF
equalization, nll a second proceeding
ni tlt' character was not n6Crasafy In
tho school law. Thu Legislature, ho
said had Intended 10 provide means
Tor tue maintenance " the hubble
school system, and the court should
give that Intention fail free. II tho
law should he held invalid, IL would
uvtriutn tho public euhuOl system:
thousands " children would be- turned
from the door. Of school house,, while
tue bulldogs would be uuucrupied;
CITY school disgtiols would DE-
iault Ia their interest, and the
courts would be- hiied with llIigants
rrcAusc VI void tax sales. This court
uhoull prevent ell these dIAsi,r. hy
Civ ~ the law n reasonable auu ueue.
nclal construction, Ia accord with tue
plHlu Intent Of the Legislature. a
got public Interest was involved Ia
I TINS question; " the law were notu ~
! lee Invalid II would lead TO Injustice, TO
| lublir inluty, Aud 10 an AbsutdIty. IL
/ would defeat the clearly undsrstood
/ ana expressed intent OF the LszIsla-
iJf'. For the purpose OF tue law the
assessor and collector for the city, Mr..
NsnC0tt commended, mes Mt thu county
assessor and collector who did the
work OF assessing and collecting tor
tue city.
II. n. whiPple followed, arguing
that the law IL void because, accord.
ing 10 HE view, II empowers the as.
SCISSOR aOd collector OF the city 10 levy
tue ttz, which would be the dslega.
| tJu Of the power Ct legislation 10
/ purely ministerial on 'ef, which may
not be done. Too Legislature, he said,
had been guilty VI inexcusable
cafrle'surs'i iu Hb0lishing The mice "
ASSESSOR Huu collector Of tue city and
/ tlen, foigtiliDg that, requiring an
Nicer That dil rot tKist 10 10 the as
seeing and collecting ~ the school
tHE, Mr. Wupplr insls,sd tina, ms
/ construction OF the law cOntsndsd Tor
uy the board OF education would 10.
/ quite The clntl To iegisiAto words into
/ ue statute. Tue Legislature had Teen
| thinking OF one officer whereas II mad
| provided trst ruCn Nj 'ft should 20
! out Of existence. hun the work bs
lone by Two other III, ofs, emitting
/ tue school tex iTOm tuelf WORK, For
1his reason the law was imperative
| pu that pOint, anu the Legislature was
TO blame. Tbs court c1u Il not supply
| TIE deficiency la tho statute. Mi.
| WhlplIo utAt directed his attention
| ~ the matter Oi the assessor Making
| tue levy, wuicn power IL wac not ia
/ tie authority II the Legislature to
! zive, Here sgsiu the law Was invalid.
ami the court could not give It n vital.
y which u did not possess. AZ t0
! ,quAhAallOu, tue fact that The school
! dt'if!ut Wsi not represented on the
/ UOatd which dl1 ,as work wsH
deprivation Of the rlGht u cqu4llza-
,lUU,
During bls argunsSr, Mr.. whi9rls
wa 1ssri niaES qurs ION, by tbrCUufl,
Shirh maUi iUuIrse tuAt they dli
| not qulvEiy Cu'urar with thsvluw no
Ne sccsing Go 'upr,ss a. on them.
L., NJ. Aiisln's Argument vas
directed on brbsif Of the yRlJity VI
tue law. No reviewed the history u
the ireo tcr9ol legislation, aui ulyvd
/ hat the levy OF the school tEE was
| effected Ia the estimate aud rH-,inr1-
! lun by the school bard, AMI inst
tnu work VI tbs assessor Wts merely
/ the calculation OF the FAlB prr
| cent lowed. The law Ms it now
stood was passed 10 1897, IN the srU-
lions under discussion, aud vs. there
was n statute which made a change
| q collectors 10 take plsce year later,
| the law was intended 20 cover buth
/ collections, Ia 1850 tho law ssil tho
| collection should be- uy the city co!lrC-
t0t but In 1852 tur wyrI city WIS
| dropped. This sn.wei an evident
| detention that the officer charged with
| the collection ~ taxes should 80 the
/ work, whether 10 was tho city Ool,fr.Dr
/ ia 1892 UT the county collector 900 lsy3,
/ Too Legislature hsi Intended 30 tt
| both condition., aud o construction uG
.He law IN that view would uphold us
validity. The Legislative COMMITTEES
ula discussed THIS vtgy quest D., anu
had framed the language 49, 10 isNl.u
the idea Of covering IhU CuuugB ia col.
lyu,urz. Iuu collector t.r tho Clly rot
ihe clty meant tie tiiCor VINO Ild ths
collection OF city taxes. turning 10
tho matter Of ,qu-Hzuion, MI
Allison iusls,ed that lEe IrOylsiuu Tor
equsuzlug ouy taxes Included tho
tuuOOl tbNes raised iu cities. A. 70 inc
.evy, tuat was mEdu by tue oaTI VI
education, and tue requirement On tie
.f.uyIuys1 mn y a. Jn,