Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-05-15
Ipe CATTLE AND SHEEP LICENSE
DISPUTE.

I
classes of business in this State. What
makes IL more unfortunate Is that some
county officials in different parts OF
the State have lent themselves, unwit.
situation where the irritation might
have been reduced by wise and con.
servslive action, instead OF being in.
creased as IL now is. For some days
past Populations from different
counties have been in the
city consulting with leading
lawyers, and today the executive com.
| mittee OF a State association Ia dis.
cussing the method to be followed In
an eDdeavor to prohibit several coun.
ties taking action in the way their cam
| missiouers have decided.
The trouble brought to the fore 10
the old irritation between the sheep
men and cattle men, in which II now
| looks as though the public is TO be
made a. capsplw for one or the other
side. Several boards OF county commits
| pioners have decided to levy per capita
tax upon certain animsls, es o
| license with which to raise revenue.
In some COUNTIES this tax hiss been
fixed attwo cents per head iot sheep ,
in others five cents, and still others
ten cents. Then some counties have
put tax of fifty cents per head upon
range horses anu cattle. The dis.
parity in the rules adopted leaves
room for but one conclusion, viz: That
In counties where the sheep men have
predominsting influence the cattle
Industry is to be- knitted, and in those
where the cattle men hold the politi-
cal strings the sheep Industry is to
have the life cut out OF 1t; and that
the government weapon OF taxation
lie to be made the means o! throat
sitting. II the only question we're
a straight one FOX regulating by
licenses either one or the other class
OF business there would not be such alb.
SERGE of uniformity, neither would
there be any excessive levy.
AZ to the matter OF power OF coun-
ties require license, there Ia some
dispute on that; though the general
conclusion is that a licenss may be re-
quired to the extent necessary for q
proper regulation OF the business con.
cerned. This 10 the effect OF official
| legal opinion here, and OF recent de-
cisions quoted from California and
called license lie really a tax for
revenue. the situation presents an
entirely different aspect, and in prin.
clple the law was held, in n state Of
Washington decision this week, to be
against the county commissioners
exercising such powers, under q CON-
stitutionsl provision the same as that
in Utah. All these decisions may be
harmonized on the theory that coun.
ty may regulate by license. hut may
not raise revenue by per capita tax
on animals. 1t 10 not the matter OF
licensing that is pointed out as objec.
tionable in the existing situation, but
the evident war on existing Industries
that is back OF the peculiar assessme n ts
made.
Under the conditions now presented
in some counties, II n man owns 1900
sheep assessed at Sl.50 head, he IL
taxed thereon for county purposes,
under the advalOrem rule, Sl5; then
in some Counties he is liable to another
$500 tax, which other counties do not
require; or II a cattle owner has 800
animals assessed at $40 each, he pays
the SIS county tax, and In some
counties Is called on for another $3.50,
tut In other counties escapes Tree.
With this order OF business, the con.
slitutionsl provision that all properly
shall Ue taxed in proportion TO itt
value is thrown to the winds; for in
proportion some people have to pay
from ten to fourteen times as much a.
Others on the same class OF property.
The Consultation also says the LegislA.
ture may sssess tax based on lice nses,
ETC.; but that Is the State legislative
body, not county boards; anu then
such tax must be proporlionate on the
value OF the property.
The NEWS does not raise any ques.
tl0n either as to the power OF officials
requiring a license from the cattle OF
sheep business, or any other, and FIX
I