Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1902-03-06
CANNOT REPAY
LEGACY TAXES
UNTIL SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE APP
PRoPRIATioN is MADE.
SAYS ATTORNEY GENERAL
States Legal Advisor informs Secre-
tary FroehIich According to Law
the Payments Under the Invalid
Provision Must Be Retained Until
Special Statute Is Enacted.
Madison. March Z


According to the opinion of AttOT
ney General Emmett R. Hicks, handed
to the secretary of state Saturday,
those who have paid inheritance taxes
cannot expect to have the same re
funded because of the ruling Of the
supreme court declaring the state IN,
heritance 'aw invalid, until the legls-
lature makes a special appropriation
for that purpose. Mr.. Hicks opinion
explaining the whole matter, is as fol
lows:
William H. Froehlich, secretary OF
state,
Dear Sir
Il have your recent communication
in which you state that the supreme
court of the state Of Wisconsin has
recently declared chapter $50 OF the
laws of 1899, as amended by chapter
245 of the laws of 1901, to be unconstl-
tutional, and that the demand is now
being made upon you for the refund.
ing of moneys paid to the state under
this law. You ask whether the provi-
sion found in section OF chapter
355, which says that, when any
amount of said tax shall have been
paid enormously into the state treas
ury, it shall be lawful for the secre.
tary Of state to audit it out, still
stands, or whether it TAILS with the
balance of the law, and, il such Prov
sion falls with the balance Of the law
whether there is any authority Tor
the secretary of state to refund this
money.
In reply beg to say, it is very ap-
parent that the provision referred tC
would never have been enacted as a
separate and Independent statute
that it's only excuse for existence Is
because of the enactment OF the bal
ance of the statute, it never would
have enacted this provision. mat
being the case, it is so inseparab!y
connected with the unconstitutional
provision of the statute that it falls
with the rest and is absolutely vo1d
This being so, we are confronted with
this condition: claim is made by indi-
viduals to money found in the state
treasury; the secretary of state is
asked to audit these claims and au.
thorize the issue Of warrants to pay
them. The constitution Of the sta5e
of Wisconsin, section 2, article VIII
provides that no money shall be palo
out Of the treasury except i'll pursu-
ance of an appropriation by law. Il
the above unconstitutional provision
could be looked upon as a valid legis,
lative act, it might possibly form a
basis for the conclusion that it was At
least an indirect appropriation, and
therefore would justify the secretary
of state in issuing the warrants; out
as it is an absolutely void provision
it forms no basis for justification fol
his action. l know of no provision OF
law that can be held to be an appro
priation for this purpose, and, with
out such an appropriation, the secre-
tary of state is by this provision OF
the constitution directly prohibited
from issuing such warrant
Il therefore conclude and advise
you that the provision found in sec
ton s, chapter 355, laws OF 1899
authorizing refund when taxes have
been enormously paid, is dead pro
vision and that there is no provision
in law authorizing the ecretary OF
state to make such refuno; that no such
refund can be made without an appro.
priation, and that therefore the sec
rotary of state cannot Issue these
warrants"
e. r. HICKS