Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-01-14

ants or property of county. retain
| Ing for the state one pcr cent only. and
providing that % per cent should go
into the county treasusN But how
ever that might be. the question here
is altogether a different one. Here the
question Isl Has the legislature. under
| Its constitutional authority the power
To provide by law Tor tho imposition
OF a tax by the county authorities
| based upon income. occupation, IL
censes, franchises or mort gages2
III Il be held that the Montana lcgis-
| lature under the section of the con
| stitution above cited. can impose a IL
| csnse tax upon the Inhabitants or prop
erty Of a county for county pur-
| poses with much greater strength OF
reasoning can 1t be held that the legis-
laturn may. by law. authorize the au-
! thorities of a county 10 impose such n
tax upon themselves.
III under the provision of our Com
stltution denying TO the Legislature the
power to impose taxes for county pur-
poses upon the people or property of
the county, It can still impose a license
tax and turn the same into the county
treasury II would appear that under
It's constitutional authority to provide
tax based upon occupation and
licenses. and TO vest In the corporate
authorities of the counties, the power
to assess and collect taxes for all pur-
poses of such corporation. the authority
also exists TO authorize, by law, the
counties to impose such tax.
THE Legislature ls the only authority
that can vest such power In the cor
porate authorities.
ITO provide such taxes for what and
whom? For regulation only, or revenue
only, or for both? For the State alone,
or for the counties also? To provide
tax means the power to put It to all
uses for which taxes are used unless
the terms Of the Constitution restrict
Il see nothing. therefore. In section
IL, art. 10. which even remotely tends
to dlsarm the Legislature of such au-
thority. and under section of the same !
article IL could by law vest in the coun- !
ties the power to assess and collect !
such taxes
"The evident intention of the board |
Of commissioners of Summit county. |
from the terms and words of the ordl-
nance was to lay n license tax upon the |
business of raising. grazing, herdlne |
or pasturing sheep aud II they have
failed to do that the contention of de-
PENDANT Is correct. If. as contended by
defendant. they have imposed the tax
upon the property at stated figure
per head II will be void.
THE ordinance provides that the busi-
ness shall be divided into classes and
the first class shall incluie those own
ing or having in their possession and
under their control 5000 or more sheep.
and must pay $3.50 per ann II for the
first 5000 sheep and for every addi-
tional 1000 sheep the sum of $50
"A tax of $3.50 on 5000 sheep would
be at the rate of five cents per head,
but as the class does not embrace the
5000 alone but includes all sheep over
5000 and up to 5000 which a person,
HIM MN gY
control, the tax would not be five cents
per head, but would be $3.50 on 81 1850 or
300 or $500 or any other number be-
tween 5000 and 5000. And SO with
the second class; the tax would be two
hundred dollars upon 1000 sheep, but
II would also be two hundred dollars
upon any number above 1000 and un-
der 5000 and would not therefore be
five cents per head. The tax has been
to the class as is always
done upon every other kind of business
In imposing this kind of tax for IL
would be palpably unfair, not to say
unjust, to compel man of.the seventh
class with less than one thousand sheep
TO pay the same tax as man with five
thousand sheep. conclude, therefore,
that the ordinance does not tax the
at any rate per head. nor as
property. but lays the tax upon the
business of raising. grazing, herding or
sheep, and Is therefore valid ,
and so long as Il reaches every class of
the same business alike 1t is not un- |
equal nor discriminating. Nor is 1t {
iouble taxation. 49,
THE Constitution of Utah being ST.
ent upon the question of double taxa
ton the Legislature would have the ,
power TO impose double taxation, but ,
In this case the imposition of the tax
IN question would not be double taxa !
lion. even II the Constitution forbade ,,
iouble taxation. 1t is true. as stated by
COUNSEL in his argument. that the power
% tax includes the power to destroy.
>ut whatever may be the courts views
rs to the policy of such Il law. or what
'ver doubts the court may have as r
o such expediency. can have no I,
weight upon this legal proposition The n
ow must be construed as 1t IL and not
n accordance with any ones doubts as
o It's eXpediency.
II hold, therefore. that there has
'een no contravention of any consti-
utional provision; that the statute Is n
aid, and the county ordinance drawn n
n accordance Herewith is also valid, :,
he demurrer will be overrued."