The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1900-05-28
CAFFREY
WANTS A
NEW TRIAL,

ONLAHOMA CITY, MAY 25.-Richard
F. Cafrey clerk of Oklahoma county.
through his attorneys, has petitioned the
United States supreme court for a re-
nearing In the case lately dismissed for
want or jurisdiction. Caffrey. holding
'hat the q per cent tax raise i'm okla
Homa county, as made by the territorial
BOARD OF equalization, was Illegal. refused
10 extend the tax rolls of his county as
ordered by the board. lie ignored "a writ
OF mandamus from the territorial su-
pfeme court commanding him To extend
the rolls and was declared i'm contemnt
/ ana ordered to Jail. lie appealed to the
uhlted states supreme court and set nm
the argument that the board of eoualiza-
ton had no authority to make the ratsa
because 1t was in contravention to the
organic act
In dismissing the case for want of iuris-
dlction the United States supreme court
| aHeSed as reasons that there was NOT
Drawn I'm question the validity OF a stat
ute of or an authority exercised under
the United States" as provided I'm tbe
act Of congress of March 3. 1885. and
further, that there was not involved ne
cuniary value exceeding 5000 to the
party appealing (Canrey), or "in other
words, there must be a DISPUTE which
| involves the sum in excess OF Is 600 ana
such sum or property of its value. must
be taken from him by the Judgment
which he seeks to review Plaintiff in
error (Canrey) has neither gained nor
Iost any money or moneys worth by the
judgment The total amount Of the "a
per cent raise was about SOS 600. but the
specific amount sought by the Territory.
winch instituted the suit, was $317927 the
amount due the territorial government
In MS petition for a rehearing Caffrey
| alleges that the United States supreme
court was in error on both points in
! VolVing the question of Jurisdiction
The argument of Caffreys attorney,
| Judge j. r. Keaton, to show that a stat
ute or authority existed under the United
! States was involved, begins by declaring
that the Oklahoma supreme court when
j, upheld the tax raise, of the board came
from a territorial statute which the leg
islature was authorized to pass under the
organic act. The organic act is a crea-
tion of congress. Hence, when Caffrey
challenged the validity of an order of the
board on jurisdiction grounds and the
was drawn in question the validity both
of a statute and an authority exercised
under the United States.
AS to the pecuniary jurisdiction, Caff-
rey contends that while it is true that
the territory would receive only $317927
of the $2S,000 yet the OBJECT of this ac-
tion, though brought by the territory
alone, is to compel the extension of the
a per cent increase of assessment on
tie tax rolls by the county clerk for
all purposes, and not simply for the
purpose of raising the amount of the
tax which would accrue to the terri
tory. The fund which would be raised
/ by the extension would be a joint one,
in which the territory would have a
common and undivided interest with Ok
lanoma county and various other munict-
palities, and ut is perfectly immaterial
to the county clerk how it is divided
among them"
Among other cases cited by Canrey in
support of this position is that of Davies
against Corbin. This was an action OF
mandamus commenced in the circuit
court Of the United States for the east
ern district OF Arkansas by the defend
ants in error to compel Davies, as coll
ector OF Chilcot county, Arkansas, to col
lect a ten mill tax levied by the county
| court for the purpose of paying the sew
, eraI judgments of REALTORS, the aggregate
amount Of which exceeded 5000 Davies
had no personal interest In the subject
matter Of the action as 1T was not shown
that he would have any of the tax to
e pay; still the court held that the entire
amount of the tax was involved saying:
l THE clerks duty is to collect the tax
for the benefit of all alike. payment
of the judgment of one creditor would
no. relieve him from his obligation TO
collect the whole tax. The object of the
: proceeding is, not to raise the sum due
tn REALTORS, but to raise the whole tax
of ten mills on the dollar. AS the matter
stands, the relator has the right to have
o the whole tax collected for the purpose
of distribution among all the creditors.
Z 1t is apparent, therefore, that the dispute
: is between the tax collector on one side
$ and all the creditors on the other. as
10 his duty TO collect the tax as whole
q for division among them, after the col
g lection is made, according to their several
shares"
n The petitioner relies greatly upon this
I case in getting a rehearing. Should the
rhearing be granted, the validity of the
; tax raise will come squarely before the
y court and for the first time decision Will
be rendered upon this question.
= sBest for the Bowel.
NJ poatkar xuhak ails vOu headach q