The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-02-06
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THE LICENSE BILL NOW BEFORE
THE HOUSE.
An Opinion Given by Attorney-Gen-
eral Bishop in Response to a Re
quest From Chairman Cook, OF
the Committee on Live Stock.

| Attorney General Bishop yesterday
| decided that house bill No. Is. provid-
ing for a license upon the business OF
owning, raising, grazing, herding OF
pasturing sheep, now under consldera-
| ton by the legislature, is unconstitu-
tfonal The opinion was rendered to
Representative Cook, chairman of the
| house committee on live stock. The
attorney general: says in part
The bin in its present form Woulo
/ be unconstitutional as being in conflict
with section of article Is of the con-
stitution of the state, which provides
as follows: The legislature shall not
impose taxes for the. purpose of any
county. city, town or other municipal
corporation. but may, by law, vest III
the corporate authorities thereof, re-
spectively the power to assess and col
lect taxes for all purposes OF such cor
poration.
Under the provisions of the bill, the
license tax is to be imposed upon every
person now engaged in, or who may
hereafter engage in. the business OF
owning, raising, grazing, herdng OF
pasturing sheep, etc, in any county OF
the state of Utah.
Section of said bill provides that
all moneys collected for such licenses
and by him placed to the credit OF the
general fund of such county.
1T will be observed that the object
of the bill is the raising of revenue
for county purposes, and under the
section of the constitution above
quoted, it would be clearly unconstltu-
tional.
The only power the legislature pos
sesses in respect to the subject matter,
p
authorities of the county to assess and
collect taxes for all purposes of such
corporation.
"The question might be raised as to
whether the revenue to be derived
under the provisions of the said bill
could be properly said to be tax, so
as to bring it within the view of the
constitutional provisions above set
out. The purpose of the bill would
seem to be, to raise revenue for county
purposes. as distinguished from an
authorization by license to carry on the
business mentioned therein. In other
words the object would seem TO be to
secure revenue for the county, rather
than to license the business therein
mentioned. The one comes within the
taxing power, the other within the
notice power of the state. The license
is issued under police power. and the
exaction of a license fee or tax with a
view to revenue would be an exercise
of the power of taxation.
II am therefore of opinion that the
fee required under the provisions of the
proposed bill would come within the
purview of the constitutional provision
supra. and would therefore be uncon-
stitutional.
"As above suggested, the only power
possessed by the legislature respecting
the subject matter, is to vest in the
corporate authorities of the respective
counties, the power to assess and col
lect taxes for all purposes of such cor
Doration. This power was fully eXer-
cised. in my opinion, by the last legis-
latllre. as contained in subdivision 26
of section q chapter cxxxi of the laws
of 1896. In defi1icg the powers OF the
board of county commissioners it is
proyided: TO license for purposes of
regulation and revenue, all and every
kind of business not prohibited by law,
and transacted and carried on in such
county outside the limits of incorpor-
ated cities: to fix the rates of
license tax upon the same and to pro-
vide for the collection thereof by suit
or otherwise.
Under those provisions, I am of
opinion that the boards of county COM
nlissfoners of the respective counties of
the state possess the power to enact
ordinances containing provisions SINH
lar to those of the proposed BILL
1T follows therefore that no legisla-
ton upon this subject is needed for the
purpose of raising revenue for the re-
spective counties by the imposition of
such a tax"