The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-01-22

Attorney General Bishop yesterday
rendered an opinion which is of the great
est Importance as far as touching upon
the power of county commissioners to in
cur Indebtedness only to the extent of the
revenue for the current year. The at
torney general holds in effect the same as
County Attorney Van Colt and points out
plainly that the board cannot incur any
liabilities for the payment of which there
shall be no available funds during the
year.
The information is sought by County
Attorney William Howard OF Emery
county, who, in his questions. reveals u
peculiar state of affairs in his county.
The questions submitted by Mr.. Howard
are as follows:
Il Has the board of county commits
sloners the authority to take up 20 or 100
bills that have been accommodating for the
past SIX or seven months prior TO JAN
l, 1897, and that have not been acted
upon by the old board, and consider al
low and appropriate money or warrants
for their payment when there is not u
cent of last years taxes in the treasury
with which TO pay them?
-. Should not the old board of commits
SlonerS have finished all the business be-
fore them, instead of letting this kind of
business accumulate month after month?
). Justices of the peace have, during
the past year, made out their bills in
criminal cases under the old law. some
of them have been allowed and others are
now pending. Can they collect any fees
except as provided for m section 146,
page 565 of the laws Of 1S96?'
Replying thereto, the attorney general
says:
Answering your first question. as to
whether the new board has the authority
TO take up outstanding, unallowed bills
for the preceding year, the answer would
depend very much upon the question as
to whether or not the debt limit for that
haan mr. 90 han
whether the bills were liabilities created
by the board of commissioners, by con-
tract or otherwise, or whether they were
liabilities against the county, made so by
operation OF law.
Touching the question as to what is
the debt limit, this office gave an opinion
on Aug. 20, 1896, to your predecessor in
Office, the Hon. j. X. Reed. This opinion
should be among the files of the office,
and should be accessible to you as his
successor.
Upon this point the opinion is sub
stantially as follows:
THE county shall be liable for all
claims legally created against il by its
commissioners, by contract or otherwise,
provided that in any one year the liabil-
tiles thus created, in the aggregate, shall
not exceed the taxes for the current year,
and any claim allowed by the board of
county commissioners in excess of the
taxes. as shown by the total OfNhe tax
roll would be void. OF course this would
not preclude the county commissioners
from appropriating any money in the
county treasury derived from other
sources than that of taxes to the payment
of liabilities against the county. In other
words. the policy of the law is that the
county commissioners shall not incur any
Indebtedness for the payment of which
there shall be no available funds during
the year. without the assent of two
thirds majority of such qualified electors
of the county who shall have paid a
property tax therein, in the year preced-
in~ the election.
L am of opinion that any liability
against the county which has been Gre
ated by law does not come within the
purvieW of the constitution or the pro-
visions of the revenue act and therefor
if the bills in question are such as would
render them Il liability against the
county by operation of law, then they are
valid claims and should be allowed by
the present board of county commission
ers- But if. on the other hand the debt
limit was reached by the old board. and
any of these claims. if liabilities al all.
against the county, were such by reason
of having been created by the old board
of county commissioners, by contract or
otherwise, then under the law. such
claims would be void. See sections and
L. article II of the constitution. and also
sections ), and of chapter 131, page 516
of the laws of 1896.
LAS to your second question, l am of
opinion that the retiring board of county
commissioners should so far is prac-
ticable, close up the business incident to
the term for which they were elected.
1T might not be practicable, however.
to do so in all cases as the nature of
the business is such as to preclude the
possibility of winding up all of the bust
ness of the county at the expiration of
their term.
In relation to your third question, I
am of opinion that justices of the peace
are not entitled 10 charge any fees other
than those prescribed in section 146, page
$50 of the laws OF 1896.
This is in accordance with an opinion
promulgated by this office on July Z, 1896,
to Joseph t. Wilkinson, county attorney
of Iron county. AS suggested then. [
think the law should be modified, as the
fees therein provided seem to be wholly
inadequate. This is u matter for the
legislature, and not for this office to de-
termine.'