The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-03

(s6000) to build a school house. There
after. Sept. 6, 1890, the board of supet-
visors of the county changed the boun-
DIARIES of the district by excluding
therefrom certain lands. Thereafter in
October, the supervisors at the time of
leNying the county taxes, levied tax
sufficient to raise the sum thus voted,
upon all the property thai was within
the district at the time the vote was
had including the lands separated from
the district. The supreme court of Cali
fCrnia in deciding that case used the
following reasoning, and if we insert
the word county" in place of the word
district" we will find thar ii is very
pertinent to the matter now in land.
The court says:
The Legislature has designated the
supervisors of the county as the body
to levy a tax for school purposes, but
has limited their authority to the
amount voted by the district, and de-
clared that it is to be levied upon the
property within the district voting the
same. The district upon whose prop
erty the tax is to be levied is the dis
trict' which has been constituted a
public corporation, and which is desig-
mated by the name given it under the
provisions of section 1915 of the politi-
cal code. The word district as used in
section 1887, is not the equivalent of
territory within the district but is a
synonym for the corporation voting
the tax, and the tax to be levied by the
supervisors is limited to the property
within this corporation. The Fresno
city school district in the present case,
was the district which voted the tax.
and it is upon the property within the
Fresno city school district that the
tax is to be levied. BY the change in
it's boundaries, this public corporation
or district did not lose it's identity or
name, or cease to be the same legal en-
tity that it was before. For al! pur-
poses of corporate power or liability. It
remained unchanged, and the property
upon which the supervisors should have
levied the tax is only such property as,
at the time when the tax was levied,
was within the boundaries OF this cor
Toratlon. If, before the change in the
boundaries the tax had heen levied SO
as to become a charge upon the prop
erty, or an obligatiOl rom the tax
payer, it could have been thereafter col
lected. In that case 1t would have be-
come ripened into an obligation whirh
would constitute a part Of the assets or
property of the corporation, and, as we
have seen, would in the absence of any
legislative provision on the subject, be
long to the old corporation, the same as
any other public property in its Gus
tody. So long, howeve', as Ii was only
an inchoate right which mad not he
come an inforceabla obligation. the
ira nsfer of the properly from the limits
of the district took away he power I"
create such obligation
You suggest that the liens Of the
taxes date from the first Monday of
March last. The statute says which
several liens attach as Of the first Mon
day of March in each year" The stat
Ia .1at han hp 1iAr1
begins. The law fixed the dates be-
tween March l and Jury as the time
when all property must ne ass asSo1 and
fixes the lien to attach on March l, but
the lien cannot become fixed or ascer~
tanned in amount, until the taxes are
levied in August, and .han 1t attacht g
as of the prior date. But On what prop
erty does it attach? Only On the taxa
BILE property of the county, of the cor
poration. at the time Of the levy. Pun
this another way: TIL board of Deer
Lodge county will in August levy taxes
upon the then taxable property of Deer
LodgS county. The lien will attach
upon this property, the taxable in Deer
Lodge county, back to March l, but not
on property which is then not of the
property of Deer Lodge county,
The only exception to this Is in regard
to certain personal property where the
| taxes for the current year can be eel
| leCted at any time attef the lllSl WOE
| day in March. But this is wholly { n
| exception made so by the statute for
| evident reasons, and in the cases specl-
| fed the law itself makes the levy fix
| ing the rate of the previous year as the
| amount to be collected.
| The territory in question has now
| been a part of Lewis and Clarke county
| since June l last. All taxes, state,
| county, city, town and school district
| must be collected al the same time
| Suppose that in July town corpora
| ton had been formed in the terriotry
| and had levied a town tax. Who would
collect it, Deer Lodge or Lewis and
! Clarke county? Suppose that in June
the superintendent of schools of Lewis
! and Clarke county had appointed schoo
| trustees for the school district in thai
! territory. and that the trustees haC
| called an election in July, and the elect
ors had voted a tax for a school house
| what county would collect this tax
| 1t would be an anomalous state of af
fairs if Deer Lodge county had to col
lect it,
] am, therefore. of the opinion that al
ton had been formed in the territory
in question should be stricken from th'
tax roll of Deer Lodge county, as TIL
| board of commissioners of this county
| cannot lay taxes upon 1t.
| have said more in this then seemed
to me necessary. but / desired to an
swer the objections which you orall,
suggested. Respectfully,
w. II. TRIPPET.