Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-03-17
SUBJECT OF TAXATION.
General Victory PrOmul-
gates an Important Opinion
Touching Tax Levies.


collector of Socorro county the solicitor
general has written the appended opinion
Referring to your letter dated -, in
which you request my official opinion as
to the legal rate of taxation for school
purposes, and for the general county fund
for the year 1895, I beg 10 say:
First, as to the matter Of school tax.
The act of 1891, p. 81, makes it the duty
of the territorial auditor to levy for the
purpose general tax not exceeding
three mills on the dollar, said tax when
collected to be remitted to the territorial
treasury, thence to be apportioned out
among the several counties, according to
school population. The same legislature
Act of 1891, page 1870 changed the law
just stated by making the proceeds of
the tax levy payable direct to the county
treasurer, but it still left it the duty of
the auditor to make the general tax levy,
not exceeding three mills, provided by
the original law. In the performance of
this duty, the territorial auditor, under
date of March 81, 1895, mailed to each of
the boards of county commissioners
throughout the territory letter fixing
the school levy at two and half mills.
A copy of this letter is herewith inclosed
for your information. The territorial
auditor having, in the exercise of his
legal discretion fixed upon two and 4
half mills as the levy for school purposes,
it is not within the power Of the county
commissioners to change the rate. The
three mill levy is therefore illegal to the
extent of half a mill. OF course the
auditor has nothing to do with any special
school district levy authorized by chap
ter 25, of the laws of 1891. l assume,
however, that the three mill rate you
mention is wholly for general school pur-
poses and is, therefore, 10 the extent
above mentioned unauthorized by law.
Second. AS to the rate for general
county purposes. The revenue act of
1882, com piled rs sections 28OG ct seq.,
provides (Section g. that "there shall be
levied and assessed upon the taxable
property within the territory, in each
year - for ordinary county revenue,
one fourth of one per cent" or in other
words two mills and half on the dollar.
This law, as construed in the case of
Laughlin VS.. Board of County Commls-
sioners of Santa Fe County, 3 N. M. 264,
implies ga restriction on the taxing
power" Therefore, if there has been no
change in the law since that time, it is
permissible to levy tax of only two and
half mills for general county purposes.
The legislative assembly, however, by an
act approved February 10, 1889, (See
laws of 1889, page 142) authorized the
county commissioners, where the tax
levy first mentioned has proved INSULT
cient to meet current expenses, to make
an additional levy of half mill for the
purpose of making up such deficiency.
If the county of Socorro has, since 1889,
found it's income from the two and half
mills levy inaGeq uate, its commissioners
were justified in increasing the levy by an
other half mill, thus making the total levy
three mills. / am unable to find any law
authorizing a levy beyond this rate for
the purpose indicated, and my conclusion
is that levy of five mills is illegal to the
extent of two mills.
The law above cited, taken in connec-
tion with the school tax rate which you
quiry of the auditor, seems to answer
your question as to the legal rate from
1891 to the present time.
If you desire q more detailed statement
upon this last ject and find that your
district attorney is. disqualified also In
this instance shall take pleasure in ad-
vising you further if you will inform me
as to the particular le,ies you consider
questionable.
Answering your last question, half of
the unpaid taxes for the year last past
became delinq quent on January /, 1896,
and the delinquents are, therefore, now
subject to suit, when the amount exceeds
one hundred dollars. See Laws 1889, p.
l0s). Respectfully,
JNo. P. VIoroRY,
Solicitor General Of New Mexico.