The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-11-24


Mining company's net proceeds of their
mine from Jan. 1, 1885, to June /, 1896,
at $3.50 600, and the tax levy at 2712
mills came to s9,625. The company
claimed that the tax was illegal and
that III ~ case could they owe for
more than Z tax on 100000. which
they claimed was their net proceeds
for the time named. They also claimed
that 10 mills of the school tax, part
of the 271a mills, was void because it
was not levied at a meeting of the tax
payers but by the board Of school
trustees. The company paid 171a mills
on 100000, amounting to $1,150. and the
collector sold sufficient of the COM
pany's property TO make up the full
amount of tax claimed, $685.. The
plaintiff began suit and prayed that
the said sale OF their property be set
aside and that the tax be declared
Illegal
THE DECISION.
The opinion delivered by Judge
Cherry was, in substance, as follows:
In this case his honor is of the opin-
ion that article IS Of the constitution,
wherein ii is made the duty of the
legislature to provide by law for the
taxation OF the net proceeds of mines,
was not self-eXecuting and could not
have been enforced without legislative
cINlOlA. llE DETERMINATION Oh The QUeS-
ton is important only in the consider
alton Of when the power Of the state
was exercised for the enforcement of
the collection Of taxes on the net pro-
ceedS of mines by virtue of the law
Of 1896, sections CO to GO. chapter 129
Turning to the statutory enact
ment, says the opinion. the question
presented is when does the said law
begin TO take effect? Does it relate
back to Jan. 4, 1896, the date of the
ado lion of the constitution, or does
II extend its provisions no further than
the date Of its approval April 5. 1896?
A law providing for the collection
OF taxes for a series of years, upon
the same valuation Of property is nee
e5sari1y retrospective, but the law i'm
posing taxes upon the net annual pro-
ceedS OF mines was a new burden and
ought to be construed as prospective
and not retrospective, unless the con-
trary is shown by phraseology which
leaves no room for doubt
Ihat this tax was q new burden
there can be but little doubt, as section
1904 compiled laws, 1888, sub. II, espe-
clally exempted this class of property
from taxation. It would therefore fol-
low that the law of 1896, taxing the
net annual proceeds of mines must
either be retrospective and embrace the
net proceeds for enc year. which would
be from the LIST of June, 1885, or the law
was merely prospective and imposed a
tax from the time the law was enacted
until June l, 1896. I am Of opinion that
the true Interpretation would be that
the law was prospective, and that the
plaintiff was liable only to pay taxes
on the net proceeds of its mine from
April 8, 1896, to June l, 1896
The total amount of taxes claimed
by the deferd ant from the plaintiff was
$9,625. being levied upon a total valua-
ton of $3.50, Geo. OF this amount of taxes
the plaintiff has paid 81 $50. being. as
plaintiff claims the full amount legally
due. and is arrived at by putting the
total net proceeds of its mine at 500 900
from Jan. 1, 1886, to June l, 1896, and
also by deducting from said total
amount OF taxes the levy OF 10 mills on
the dollar for the Alercur school dis
trict, which is claimed to be illegal and
void
SCHOOL LEVY ILLEGAL AND
VOID.
AS to the last claim, it is the opin-
ion OF this court that il is well founded
There seems to be no other legal meth
Cd of increasing the levy of 2j5 mills
on the dollar for school purposes except
by a vote Of resident taxpayers at a
meeting held according to law. In this
instance there was no meeting Of the
taxpayers, as contemplated by the no
tice or Us approved by law, and the
certificate filed with tie clerk and
county assessor shows that the board
Of trustees voted the 10 mills additional
tax, and from the minutes of the clerk
of the board and the said certificate, it
would appear that this was done on
Dec. Il, 1895, by the board of trustees,
acting as taxpayers, it being affirm
atVely stated in the minutes that the
taxpayers failed to meet On Dec. Il, as
per notice of Nov. %, 1895
This would appear 10 be more than
a mere irregularity, and is. in fact, an
unwarranted assumption of power not
given to the board by any law Of the
state, and renders the attempted levy
of 10 mills void and illegal. The taxing
power in such case lies with the tax
payers or voters, and they alone may
exercise the power, and if they fail or
refuse TO do so, the board OF trustees
cannot act for them. The claim that
the board acted as taxpayers would be
q subterfuge and liable to render the
voice Of the taxpayers nugatOry and
unaVailing.
In view of the conclusion reached
on the questions heretofore con-
sidereG in this opinion. the true and
just amount upon which the plaintiff
SHOULD have been assessed becomes i'm
material, in SO far as affecting the re-
lief sought in this action.
ASSESSED FOR WRONG PERIOD.
'"rhe basis OF valuation fixed by the
assessor and as claimed by counsel for
the defendants was made upon an es-
innate Of the net proceeds of the mine
of the plaintiff from Jan l. 1896 to
June J. 1896. In the opinion of this
court the valuation should have been
confined to the period of time between
April ). 1885, and June l, 1896. No such
assSssment was made, and the evil
dence is~ uncontradicted, that during
the last named period the net proceeds
We're 81. 557.S7. The basis upon which
the assessor estimated the amount was
for a different and longer period of
time, and it is, therefore, impossible
to say what should have been the
proper amount for him to have as
sessed against the plaintiff, but the
plaintiff, having voluntarily paid taxes
upon an assessed valuation of 100000.
it would not be estopped from denying
that the last named sum was a lust
and proper amount, and in view of all
the facts and circumstances of this
controversy 1 am inclined to believe
that amount is in accordance with JUS
tice and right.
1.-THE view taken by this court makes
the determination of the other uues-
tons raised in the argument unneces-
sary, as it is imsnaterlal in this case