Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-11-09
COUNTY WARRANTSFOR 1866
Deputy Attorney General Smith Holds
That They Are
Not,

Since the session OF the last Leglsla-
ture there has been question in the
minds of many as to whether county
warrants issued prior to 1897 could be
used in payment OF taxes for this year.
The question was raised by County
Attorney j. Wesley Warf, of Carbon,
and Deputy Attorney General Benner
y. Smith, in a communication today
gives 1t as his opinion that the matter
has been definitely disposed OF In the
case OF Fritsch vs. the county commits
sloners of Salt Lake, and gives IL as
his opinion that county warrants of
previous years will not liquidate this
years taxes. The opinion is as fol-
lows:
I'VE are in receipt of your favor of
November LIST asking for advice as to
whether or not the county collector OF
your county should accept county war
rants issued in 1885 and 1896 in pay
ment OF taxes of 1897. l would first re-
fer you to chapter &c, page 259, OF the
laws of 1897, which provides, In sub
stance, that county warrants shall he
taken In payment OF county taxes, city
warrants in payment of city taxes and
school district warrants In payment of
district school taxes, provided that
and sinking funds shall be paid in
cash. This law, as you will observe,
specifies what particular taxes are
payable by particular warrants. The
question whether warrants Issued for
Indebtedness other than that of the
current year in which the taxes are
payable. can be received in payment of
taxes for the current year presents,
however a different question. Section
o article IA, of the Constitution pro-
hibits any county from creating any
Indebtedness In excess OF the taxes for
the current year, unless the PROPOSE
tlon to create such n debt shall have
been submitted to a vote of the qualt-
fed electors, etc. The Supreme Court
of Utah In the case of Fritsch vs.
board Of county commissioners of Salt
Lake county, A. Pacific reporter 1926.
in constituting this provision OF the Com
stltutlon, held, first. that the county
should create no debt during the year
without vote, which the revenue of
that year would not pay. Also that a
debt incurred in one year could not be
noated over to the next year and
paid out of its revenues without
n vote. The Indebtedness of the year
must be paid out OF Its revenue. The
Supreme Court also hold that II any
portion OF the revenue of any year in
the treasury on the first of the next
year IL applied To the payment of the
Indebtedness of the latter. an equal
amount OF Its revenue should be ap-
piled to the payment of the indebted
ness Of the former year. IL required
The warrants issued by your county in
1895 and 1896 We're issued In payment
Of Indebtedness Of those years respec-
tivly and should have been paid out of
the revenue of those yenrs, or your
county should have awaited itself of
the provisions OF the law allowing IL
to Issue bonds to take up Its outstand-
Ing Indebtedness. II seems clear that
the payment of taxes for 1897 in war
rnnts Of 1895 and 1896 which as above
indicated were Issued in payment of
debts incurred I'm those years, would
amount to payment OF the indebted
ness of those years by the revenues
Of the current year 1897 Such n pay
ment OF the Indebtedness OF former
years would amount TO floating over
to the next wear Of the Indebtedness In
CURED in those years, and payment
Of II out of the revenues OF the current
year, This, IN our opinion. would be
contrary to the construction OF the
constitutional provision laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case above
referred to.
You are therefore advised that your
county collector is not authorized to
accept county warrants issued In 1895
and 1896 In payment OF taxes for the
year 1891
"As to the payment OF current taxes
IN warrants OF the current year You
should ho governed by the restrictions
provided in the laws OF 1897 above re-
ferred TO. ! am unable TO furnish YOU
q copy Of the decision In this case. hut
you will find same In the Pucihc Re-
porter as herein suggested"