Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1901-05-02
THE DELINQUENT
TAX CASES
An Exhaustive Brief Filed on Behalf
Of the Territory and the
County.
BOND ISSUES ARE LEGAL
R. G. Gortner, Ex District Attorney, Sets
Forth in a Test Case Why Delin-
quent Taxes Should Be Paid By
Property Owners.


delinquent taxes and under considera
Y tion by the court, r. G. Gortner, ESD
; who brought the cases as district at
torney, amid who will bring them to
hrAsh in the district court, has filed al
exhaustive and interesting brief on be
half of the terrtory and the county
, His argument is a very good one ant
shows a thorough research of the ques
; t.cm. The test case is entitled as fol
lows:
: Territory of New Mexico, Plaintiff
VS.. The persons, real estate, lands ant
property i'm the delinquent tax list etc.
NAMED as follows: The New Mexico
Southern Pacific Railroad Co., Th
Denver a. Rio GramIde Railroad Co.. e
AL
Mr. Gortner's brief for the territory
starts out with proposed finding O.
facts based upon the record of the case
and the publication of the delinquent
tax list. All emors, Intermediates, and
irregularities of past assessments and
levies are claimed to be cured by the
|
% of THE laws of '99, and many authOri-
ties are cited upholdlng such legislation
and giving it full force The brief then
assuming that the publication has
made out a prima facia case, as held in
Maish VS.. Arizona, 164 u. S., 599 goes
offered by the taxpayers; first, the de-
ferses of THE assessment; second, de-
fenses ito the levies; and third, defenses
to the action. Under the first head
comes an extended discussion of the
scope and effect of curative legislation
such as the Duncan revenue law; ALSO
the discussion of the defense raised by
the First National bank, that it's shares
of stock should ibe assessed to- the
shareholders and not to the corpora
tion: and the reply Ito the claim of the
d. & r. G. r. Co., that THE delinquent
tax list is defective i'm its changes
against the narrow gauge railroad
property. This divigiop of the brief Is
| almost entirely devoted to the question
of clerical and ministerial irregulari-
ties, and the operation of the Duncan
law upon them.
AS a subdivision to the defenses to
the assessment, come the propositions
raised by various defendants owning
property i'm Santa Fe, that the title to
their property at the time of its as
s,essment still remained i'm the United
States, and was therefore untaxaible;
also the claim of exemption made by
the D. & r.. G. property for 1891 and '92.
AS to the Santa Fe grant proposition,
extended argument is made, and the
position taken that property holding
in Santa Fe city always has been the
subject of private ownership, under the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that the
rejection of the claim to- municipal
grant, by the supreme court, does not
invalidate such private rights, but ex-
presIsly refrains from so doing; that
the confirmatory act of 1900, necessari-
ly implies that rights deserving of CON-
firmation existed. Also, lit appears THAT
the conltirmatory act of 1900, ON the
Santa Fe grant, expressly reserves
grant which may be held by good Mex
lean or Spanish title; and the position
is taken that the taxpayers must eX-
clude that and every other possibility
of taxable title i'm himself, and that no
sufficient showing has been made to
Within Santa Fe city to be public do
mair1-as certain contingencies exist
under which 1T might we'll be private
property. This position is supported
exactly by Maish VS.. Arizona 164 U. s.
Furthermore, it lis urged that the right
of the words "real estate" un-
der our tax laws; and finally, that the
taxpayers have made sworn returns of
atements wingz, nmfrssho st3omSroLTz
sheir property, or permitted it's ENROLL
ment fer taXation, are estopped to de-
ny THAT it is subject to- taxation.
Considerable space lis also devoted to
the claim of exemption on railroad
as covering the marrow gauge
road for 1891 and 1892. The date of conn
fact to be shown in order to comple.te
the right ITO exemption for those years;
lit was not so shown, and no objection
made CIR appeal taken; consequently
the assessment cannot be collaterally
attacked.
The court is also asked to hold that
valuations fixed i'm past years cannot
lbe attacked or set aside now, unless
under special proof of fraud.
The second heading of defenses to the
levy, discusses the Judgment levy, and
the various levies for interest on
bonds. The Judgment levy is claimed
to be absolutely upheld by a recent de-
cision of the supreme court Of New
Mexico, i'm U. s. Trust Co. VS.. Terri
tory, decided Aug. 23 1850, holding that
in suit upon such levies, the Judgments
which are the basis thereof cannot be
enquired into to determine their CON-
or destroy their remedy. The
various bond issues. as shown by the
proof offered by defendants, are listed
in the brief; and the only ones the ORR
gin of which is shown are the railroad
aid bonds and the court house bonds.
As Ito the others. the presumption is i'm
voked by plaintiff that same are legal, |
nothing having BEEN shown in the trial
to justify a finding against them. The
(ComcQuded on Fourth Page.) !