The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-30

The Encouragement yesterday de-
Iivered another opinion to the state
board of equalization upon the subject
of taxation, the communication being
brought out by a letter of inquiry on
the part of the board as TO the taxing
of the water works of Nephi, from
which revenue is derived by the city.
The opinion applies to the water
works system of this city as well as
to Nephi and other towns and is I'M
portant in that respect The Judg-
ment of the attorney-general in TINS
case is clear and simple and his dehnl-
ton of the law one which can not
be misconstrued or misunderstood He
| says:
Salt Lake City, May Is. 1896.
The State Board of Equalization.
Gentlemen:-I have your favor OF
May 81, in which you submit the foi-
lowing for my opinion:
"Nephi City owns a water system
from which it derives a revenue by
collecting rents from persons using the
water. Is it assessable?"
Section of article 13. of the consti-
tuition, relating to revenue and taxa
pTONlQSo, dliOil6 O(hCl eAiAAi6S'
THAT the property of the United
States, of the state, counties, cities,
towns school districts, municipal cor
porations and public libraries, lots with
the buildings thereon used exclusively
for either religious worship or charita-
BILE purposes. and places of burial not
held or used for private or corporate
benefit, shall be exempt from taxa
t.on''
This language is plain, positive and
unambiguous, and but for the language
used in section of the revenue act"
which defines property exempt from
taxation, there would be no question
as to the fact that such property
would be exempt. But section of the
| revenue act'' provides among other
things, that,
THE property of the United States,
of the state. counties, cities and towns
(when necessary for municipal pur-
poses or when no revenue is derived
therefrom) school districts, and public
libraries, lots with the buildings there
on used exclusively for either religious
worship or charitable purposes, and
places of burial not held or used for
private or corporate benefit, shall be
exempt from taxation
Thus raising a question, by implica-
ton at least, that the property Of cities
when not necessary for municipal pur-
poses or when a revenue is derived
therefrom, might be subject to tax
alton. This would undoubtedly be true
were it not for the provision contained
in section 8 of the constitution, supra,
which expressly exemptS such property
from taxation. Again, in section
of article II of the constitution, in rela-
ton to counties, cities and towns, 1t is
| provided:
mo municipal corporation shall d.
rectly or indirectly lease, sell, alien
or dispose of any water works, water
! rights or sources of water supply now
| or hereafter to be owned or controlled
! by it. but all such water works, water
| rights and sources of water supply
now owned or hereafter to be acquired
by any municipal corporation, shall be
preserved, maintained and operated by
it for supplying its inhabitants with
water at reasonable charges.
Thus it will be seen that the trainers
Of the constitution had in mind the
idea that municipal corporations were
not only granted the right to own water
works and water rights and sources OF
water supply, but that it was made
their duty to do so; and they were pro-
hibfted from leasing or selling or dis
posing of, in any way, the same
The idea was also recognized that
these municipal corporations should
have the right to supply their inhabi-
tants with water at reasonable
charges. l think these provisions pro-
coed upon the grounds OF pubic
policy, and that it was so pro-
yided for the purpose of protect
ing the inhabitants against exor-
bEant charges of corporations who
might, in the absence of the city doing
so, be formed for the purpose of thus
supplying the inhabitants with water
Again, there might be instances where
small villages and towns would not
offer sufficient inducements to private
capital to furnish a proper system fol
that purpose, and in order that the in
habitants should not be subjected tt
the inconvenience arising from a lack o.
proper water supply. it was sought tt
impose the responsibility thereof upor
the municipal corporation itself. anG
as an encouragement to this end the
provision found in section 8, of article
Is of the constitution, supra, would
seem to be entirely consistent. Ther'
is nothing ambiguous in it's terms, ant
applying the rule of Interpretation
that the intent is to be found in tn,
instrument itself from the words there
in used; that is, if the words convey
meaning which involves no absurdit.
or contradiction with other parts of TIL
instrument, then that meaning appar
ent on it's face is to be adopted w
shall have no difficulty in arriving a
the conclusion that this class of proper
ty under this provision of the consti
tuition was intended to be exempt from
taxation. There is nothing incousist
ent with this idea except the provision
of the revenue act above quoted, ar,
this only by implication. The pro
vision of the constitution Is mandate
ry. and expressly provides that thi
class of property shall be exempt /
is well-established rule in relation t
the construction and Interpretation O
constitutional provisions. that when tn
context of the constitutional provision
is not ambiguous the courts in givin;
construction thereto are not at lbe~t
to search for its meaning beyond tn
instrument itself
While the question you ask Is In ref
erence to one small town only, I doub
not there are a great many alunicipa
corporations to which this same ques
ton may become applicable. I am o
Orain nj no.