The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-12-29

The opinion was In substance as follows;
DEAR SIRs-In response 10 request for my
opinion as TO the power Of the City Council to
remit or abate certain taxes when the parties
taxed have not carried In to the assessors an
account OF their estate, sworn TO as required
by the statute, have the honor to advise
that DO not understand that there il any
question as TO the meaning OF this statute as
settled by decisions OF our courts IL party
brings in his account TO the assessors and As
over taxed he has a remedy at law. II he does
not bring In TO the assessors such an account
within the time appointed for that purpose
but runs his chances Of being over taxed then
he has no legal remedy and there is no way for
him To recover back by law from the city the
amount which he may claim TO have been re-
covered of him in excess of what he should
have been taxed.
also understand that il is equally well
settled that there is no power In the assessors,
the tax once assessed, to change valuations or
to abate taxes except perhaps to correct mani
fest mistakes.
Ii is however quite another and distinct
question whether the power resides in the
City Council on its own motion 10 remit or
abate tax or any portion thereof when il is
made plain that by reason of accident or mis-
take such as is hereinafter referred to. tax,
or any portion of same, has been unjustly
and inequitably assessed, collected and paid
iato the city treasury.
have always understood that such power
did reside in the Council, and that it has al
ways been recognized and exercised by the
Town and City Councils in this State when
ever the facts in given case appeared to such
Councils to justify such action, notwithStand-
ing that during all such time the same law
has been upon statutes is now there
with reference to bringing in account to as
SCISSORS and as to no remedy TO the taxpayer
in case OF bringing in no account.
The City Council Of the city OF Providence
have assumed that they had the power in
proper case to sbate or remit an unjust or
inequitable tax. By section Al of the ordi-
nances passed, IL is provided that the city
treasurer, whenever any tax, or portion of
tax, assessed against any person shall be
abated or remitted by the City Council, shall
pay the sum SO abated or remitted to the per-
son entitled to receive the same provided the
same has been paid into the city treasury, and
whenever the tax so abated or remitted shall
not have been paid by the city treasurer, he
shall deduct the amount abated or remitted
from the tax of the person assessed, and credit
himself with the amount so abated or re-
mitted.
The second section Of the Constitution of the
State is as follows:
Section 2. All free governments are insti-
tuted for the protection, safety and happiness
Of the people. All laws, therefore, should be
made for the good of the whole, and the bur
dens OF the State ought TO be fairly distri-
buted among its citizens"
The last clause of this section sets forth the
principle which must underle and control all
laws governing taxation If they are to be sup
ported as constitutional. by this principal
their legitimacy is 10 be tried and determined,
and In its light they are TO be interpreted and
applied.
This principle, on the one hand, forbids the
oppression of any individual or class of indi-
yiduals by placing ON them more than their
fair share OF the burdens of supporting the
State. city or town government, and, ON the
other, with equal force prohibits the exemp-
tion of any individuals or class Of individuals
from bearing their just proportion of such
burdens.
In the case Of public property, whether
municipal, State or national, and of the pro-
perty OF charitable or benevolent osganiz,,-
tions, exemption from taxation is not in viola
tion of this constitutional provision, as it is
only short way of preventing the collection
of unnecessary taxes, since the money raised
by the taxation of public property or public
charities would necessarily have to be pro-
vided at the expense OF the taxpayers.
But, except in such easel the exemption of
any person or class, in whole or in part, from
20 % ofa,r
dons of the State, which, by dividing the
total tax among fewer number, increases
the amount which each of the rest must pay,
and so increases the inequality which 1t has
ere ated. From such a violation Of his consti.
tut 'onal rights any citizen who is aggrieyed
has a right TO appeal to the courts for protec-
tion.
Such exemption from taxation is equally
unfair and unlawful, when brought about by
the remission of a tax already assessed, as in
the casa Of an exemption from assessment in
the first instance.
The same rule does not, however apply in
the case of remission or abatement, in whole
or part, unjust, unlawful or iuequitable
tax, since the remission or abatement OF such
unjust or inequitable tax would be
in compliance with the constitutional require
ment instead of in violation Of IL.
When person has been unfairly or unjustly
or inequitably taxed, he may, unless his own
default stands in the way, proceed TO obtain
his rights in eithrr OF two ways. First he may
petit, the town CT city, stating his griev-
anee, and ask them TO do him justice by vol
unfairly remitting or refunding the tax Sec
ondly, he may proceed, through the courts,
to prevent the collecting Of the tax OF 10
compel its repayment II he has been forced to
pay It..
While thos, two methods Of procedure are
each founded on the same principle, which re
quires ',he burdens OF the State TO be fairly |
they are totally distinct in |
nature and application. Tho one is a compui- |
sorry remedy Against the city or town: the
other Is only effective i'm case the municipal. |
ity is willing TO take voluntary action Just |
~ unwillingncss 30 act on the part OF tho |
town, is no bar TO the legal remedy, 90 acct
dent, misfortune or mistake, which may stand |
in the way % LEGAL relief need not prevent |
the town from doing justice II IL so desires. |
The greatest obstacle In the way Of practical |
lpplil alton Of the principle regarding |