The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-12-15
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS
TAXES OF INDECENT POOR CAN
NOT BE PAID BY COUNTIES.
The Law Making Expense of In
quests a Claim Against Estates Is
Believed to Be Unconstitutional.

Two opinions of public interest were
rendered yesterday by Attorney Gen
eral Bishop. The first was to County
Attorney Nebeker of Cache county on
the query as to whether the board of
county commissioners can lawfully ap-
propriate to the dependent poor in the
county a sufficient amount of money to
pay their taxes, and the holding of the
attorney general is that such cannot be
done.
The opinion states: 81 do not believe
the board possesses such power, as that
would be doing indirectly, what the SUI
prerne court of the state has said can
not be done directly. 1 do not think
of the board of county commissioners
is sufficiently broad to include this sub
ject matter. While, no doubt the pro-
visions of law are broad enough
to authorize the county COM
missioners to maintain and care for,
personally, the INDECENT sick and other
wise dependent poor of the county, and
for such purposes to levy the neces-
Sary property tax and poll tax, yet, [
am strongly inclined to the opinion
that such power is not sufficiently
broad to enable the commissioners to
impose tax upon the taxable property
Of a county and divert the proceeds
thereof to the payment of a tax on
property, even though the same might
belong to the dependent poor and might
be subject to be sold for the payment
of the taxes unless so paid
The second opinion is in reply to
County Attorney Steed of Box Elder,
who asked the question: rs section
1910 of the revised statutes of Utah I'M
constitutional? The section relates to
the holding Of inquests and provides
that the expense thereof shall be
legal claim against the estate of the
deceased.
81 am frank to say states the at
torney. general in his opinion, that
have very serious doubts as to it's con-
stitutionality, as it would seem to be
in violation of section %, of article /,
of the constitution, which provides that
private property shall not be taken or
damaged for public use without just
compensation.
Continuing, the attorney generals
opinion says:
"Inquests are to be held on the bodies
of such persons as are supposed to
have died by unlawful means within
the precinct. There may be cases
where deceased persons can be said to
be responsible, to some extent, for their
own demise and, in such cases, there
might be some plausible reason adj
NanceQ why Lnelr estates SnOulQ be
held responsible for the expense of an
inquest made necessary by death, but,
in the generality of cases, in which
inquests become necessary, it may be
assumed that the party came to his
death without fault upon his part, and,
in such cases. to say eaat his estate
must be subjected to the payment of
the expense of an inquest, which, in
the very nature of things, is a charge
upon the public funds, is going very far
toward the invasion of that constitu-
tional provision above quoted. 1t is APP
plying the estate of such decedent to a
public purpose and, in that sense, would
be taking private property for public
purpose without just compensation.
at Should be borne in mind, how
ever, that to call in question the consti-
tutionality of a statute is always a pro-
| ceeding Of much delicacy and, in a
doubtful case, Should seldom, if ever,
be decided in the affirmative, and I'M
less the mind is convinced of the I'M
constitutionality of the law, absolutely,
the officer whose duty it is to execute
the law should regard it as valid until
declared otherwise by the proper courts
of the state.