The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-07-10

Just before the return of Attorney
General Bishop from the east, Hon. C.
S. Vartan who acted as attorney-gen
eral while Mr.. Bishop was absent de-
livered an important opinion upon the
subject of school taxation, in response
TO an inquiry, whicG as yet has not
been published.
The Judgment Of the acting attorney
general is an important matter, as by
it's provisions one act of the legislature
is invalidated, in so far as It applies to
the levying of taxes for the support of
the schools. the same Deing a portion
of public schools. providing for the ap-
pointment of a state board of educa-
ton, etc.
The question came up on an inquiry
addressed to the clerk of the attorney
general, which was indited by the
county clerk of Grand county and by
the clerk in the Office referred TO Mr..
Varian. This will account for the adj
dress upon the communication, which
reads as follows:
C. S. Hills, ESD, Attorney-General's
office:
1 have your communication of June
rs, stating the request Of G. j. Elliott,
county clerk of Grand county, for an
opinion as to which statute shall gov
ern in providing for the levy of county
school taxes. There are three enact
ments upon this question. Section 2, Of
an act entitled can act 20 provide rev.
enue for the support of the govern
ment of the state and for the several
counties of the state for the fiscal year
1896" laws eli 1896, page 1853, directs the
levy of a county school tax of not eX-
ceeding three mills on each dollar This
act did not become a law until June T.
1896.
Section 81 of the revenue act, was ap-
proved April 5, 1896, and took effect
on that date. Laws of 1895. page 456.
requires a levy of not exceeding three
mills on the dollar for county school
purposes, to be made between the first
Monday in July and the fourth Monday
in August in each year.
The act entitled AN act creating a
state board of education, defining its
duties and powers, ETC." approved
April 8, 1896, taking effect June 4, 1885,
requires a levy of the county school
tax at the time of making the annual
levy of county taxes by the county
commissioners, and it is provided that
said tax shall not exceed two mills
on the taxable property of the county"
section a. page 4S0.
The first two acts mentioned make
the same provision as to the maximum
OF county school tax, and were in effect
as laws June 4, 1886
On June 4. 1896, the date when the act
relating to schools became operative.
the maximum of levy for county school
purposes was already fixed by law at
three mills on each dollar of taxable
property The question is whether this
law-"The School LAWS in conflict
in the particular case under considera-
ton with the statute in being at the
time Of its taking effect, as determined
by its numerical position.
The difficulty lies in the uncertainty
and indefiniteness of section a. 1t is
as follows: 1.-The board of county com
mlssioners of the county at the ti1neLe
making the annual levy of other county
taxes, must levy a county school tax.
1t shall be collected by the officer
charged with the collection of general
county taxes, at the same time and on
the same valuations as other county
taxes. Said tax shall be paid into tbs
county treasury to the credit of such
county school fund, provided the said
tax shall not exceed two mills on the
taxable property of the county"
The proviso is apparently so in
definite as to be absurd. The real in
tent of the legislature cannot be as
expressed in the language 1t was. of
course, intended to prescribe the limit
Tor the levy, and one may we'll as
amount on the dollar, etc.
me levy must be made upon the
taxable property not exceeding a des-
lgnated amount upon the dollar. But
the law as written does not so saw.
Without taking the time to appIy the
elaborate rules of construction and in
depreciation. / may say I do not find
IN examination of the several provis-
ions on the subject an intention on, the
part Of the legislature sufficiently eX-
pressed 20 change the maximum Of
county school tax levy as fixed by the
revenue law. which is dealing directly
with the subject. l am of the opinion
that the provision of the school law
section a. is imperative and the maxi
mum levy IS, as heretofore stated.
mills on the dollar.
c. S. VARIAN.
Acting Atty Gen.
This opinion will cut quite a figure
in the revenues which Will accrue as
result of taxation in several portions of
the state, where the citizens want as
neaVy levy as possible in order TO
Keep the schools going as many months
in the year as possible.
STATE LAND BOARD.
All the members Of the state board
of land commissioners were present at
the meeting yesterday, with the ex-
ception of Mr.. Reese, who is in the
south making locations on behalf of
the state, selecting lands, etc.
The board decided an important
point at the opening of the meeting,
the same being the rejection of the
application of the Gunnison City Canal
company, which applied for 1000 acres
of land under a proposed reservoir
site, asking that the same be given it
in consideration of its making certain
improvements, which were set out in
the application In other words, the
company wanted the lands for the
work which it would do in constructing
and operating a reservoir for irriga-