The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-03-06

The opinion of the attorney general
on the constitutionality of house bill
No. 2S, an act to provide revenue for
the support of the government of the
state of Utah, and to provide for a Ii
cense upon the business of owning.
raising, grazing, herding or pasturing
sheep in the several counties of the
state of Utah, and to provide pun
I ishment therefor, has been published in
pamphlet form, together with other
matters appertaniing thereto, and is
being circulated among the members of
the Legislature.
It will be remembered that Mr..
Bishop declared the act would be I'M
constitutional. inaSmuch as, in his
Judgment, it confiicted with section >
of article Is of the constitution, which
reads:
THE legislature shall not impose
taxes for the purpose of any county,
city. town or other municipal corpora
ton, buy may by law vest in the cor
porate authorities thereof, respective
". the power to assess and collect
taxes for all purposes of such corpor-
alton
But now comes the author of the
pamphlet with a decision of the su-
preIne' court of the state of California,
and knocks the opinion of the attor-
ney-general of the state of Utah into
those infinitesimal fragments common
" called smithereens. The case in
point is ex parte Mirande, on habeas
corpus.
Petitioner was convicted under a
complaint charging him with having
committed a misdemeanor by wilfully
being engaged in and carrying on the
business of grazing, herding and pas
turing sheep in Mono county. without
taking out or providing license there
for. in violation of certain ordinances
of the board of supervisors of the
county. Held, that the complaint was
sufficient to give the court jurisdiction
and to sustain the conviction
The board of supervisors has power
under the constitution 10 enact an Or
dinance requiring all persons herding
or pasturing sheep to procure license
at the rate of $50 per 100 sheep. and to
provide that a violation shall consti-
tute a misdemeanor
Petitioners attorneys set up that the
ordinance was unjust, unreasonable
and oppressive. and therefore void, and
cited many authorities.
Chief Justice Seares delivered the
opinion of the court. After citing the
ordinance. the manner and form of it's
passage which were declared regular
and according to law, the court said,
quoting section u of the California
constitution:
THE legislature shall have no power
to impose taxes upon counties. cities.
towns or other public or municipal
corporations. or upon the inhabitants
or property thereof. for county. city,
town or other municipal purposes, but
may by general laws. vest in the cor
porate authorities thereof the power
to assess and collect taxes for such
purposes
Although containing more verbiage
than section of article Is of the Utah
constitution. the latter provision will
apparently admit of a more liberal
construction.
The court said I'VE do not deem it
necessary to discuss the question as to
whether the license is imposed for rev.
enue or for purposes of regulation, Tor
the reason that the board possessed
authority TO impose it for either or
BOTH" Eek parte Mount, Sc Cal, 44S.)
1--WE do not find that any other or
greater burden is imposed upon the de-
PENDANT by the ordinances in question
than are imposed upon those similarly
ard fail to see that the or
dinance is unjust. unreasonable or OPP
pressive.
Upon the whole case as presented
by the record. we are Of the opinion
that the writ should be dismissed, and
the prisoner remanded-
Thornton. J.; Temple, J.; Paterson,
J.: Mcfarland. J.. and McKinstry, J.,
concurred.
The contention is made that house
bill rs is similar in effect to the Cali
fornia law and that our own attorney
general. to quote a member of the SEN
ate, was right as usual.