Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-07-31
THE POLL TAX CONTROVERSY.

Our friends In this city VINO nave pau
or worked out their poll taxes, under
the provisions Of city ordinance when
has been judcially declared Invalid
should not become excited over the al
legged unlawful enforcement OF the law
nor imagine. as suggested by some en-
thuslasts. that they can recover from
the city the amounts they have paid IN
cash or labor. Apart from the trouble
nnd EXPENSE OF litigation over The small
amount involved in each case, Is the
obstacle that they did not pay under
protest, and 80 their cause has lapseo
and they are not likely TO succeed III
snt~at-law.
There is another considerations While
the chief point In the demurrer. entered
by the defendant in the suit Of the CITY
10 compel payment Of poll-tax ana
which was sustained by the city court
affects the validity OF the city ordin-
ance and so applies to the general
question OF the right Of the city 70
levy and collect such tax from any
body, there are two more judicial guess
es to come; namely, Of the District
court and the Supreme court to when
an appeal can be taken II necessary
So. people wha have settled their poll
tax had better not rush IN a hurry
10 try and recover their little three
dollars apiece.
There is still a question 70 he oe-
clded in the case under consideration
The city Council. as long ago as
April 6, 1856, passed an ordinance re-
ouIring two days work or three dollars
lawful money as an annual poli-laX
upon every man In the city over TWEEN
ty-one and under fifty years Of age
who was not physically incapacitated 10
work" This was done under the pro-
visions OF the general polltax law OF
March II. 1856, which required this tax
of all such persons. and gave authority
10 towns and cities TO collect it, "un-
der such regulations as may be by Or
dinance provided" The power OF the
CITY 10 pass the ordinance and collect
the poll-tax was therefore clearly con-
ferred BY the Legislature. Let this be
carefully borne In mind
when the statutes Of Utah were re-
vjsed m 1898. the laws respecting the
movers OF the cities under their respec-
tive charters were compiled and a re-
healing clause embodying the proN-
slons OF sections 172O and li2l OF the
laws Of 1885 appeared as Section 81. II
Is now argued and so ruled upon by
Judge Tanner that under that section,
authority to collec polltax was taken
from this city under the ordinance TO
which we have referred, because the
power TO levy and collect such tax is
not Included in Title 10 Of the Revised
statutes. which is in the nature Of ne"
charter to cities and towns, and which
rcpeals "all the special charters Of all
cities and towns in this State and all
amendments thereto The decision
amounts. then, TO this. The city ordin-
Rnce which has been IN force since 1896
and appears anew in the ordinances OF
1872. has been invalid since the passage
OF the Revised Statutes Of 1895, because
OF the repeating clause which we have
cited.
But a little close Investigation VIII
show that the City Council, in passing
the polltax ordinance did not proceed
under any special or general charter re-
pealcd in 1893, but under the power Civ
en- by the general polltax law Of lsNG
which Is Included in the Revised stat
utes Of 1895 and is still IN force as Sec
ton l74S, and provides that
within incorporated cities or towns
said poltaX may be collected and eN'
pended under such regulations as may
be by ordinance prescribed.
Il is evident that the fact has been
overlooked, that the city Council IN
passing the polltax ordinance did not
&c, under any special charter for
that only gave the power to impose
one days labor or one dollar and a hall
cash on each person liable, while the
statute we have quoted permits the
levy and collection OF twice that
amount, and that IS what the city by
ordinance has Imposed
10 Is not surprising, considering his
record. that the city Attorney blum
dercd in making the misioinder Of par
ties plalntlff in the suit before the
court, but II is strange that neither the
lawyers nor the court perceived the inn
portant point to which we have here
drawn attention,
No one contends We understand that
the city Council has not the power
now under Section l7i3 Of the Revised
Statutes Of 1895 to pass an ordinance rec
curing a two-days polltaN Well then
that power has existed from The time
the law was passed. which was March
II. 1855. and was acted upon by the
council on April G o. that year nnd
therefore the polItax ordinance. not bee
lne passed under any special city char
ter but under a statute that has not
been repealed, must be as good today as
ever and as valid as new ordinance
would be u passed now under the same
statute
The repeating section Of the city char
terra also has a proyiso which Is Of some
importance. viewed IN the lighi Of the
law that We have cited II is this: