The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-03-22
ROBERTS
OPINION
Is GIVEN
The Assessor Bill Is in Effect
When Signed.
NO COUNTY ASSESSOR
In Fact, None of Any Kind
Under New Law.
NO COUNTY ASSESSOR

Guthrie. o. t, March 21.-There ar
now good prospects for a special session
of the legislature in order to remedy de
fects in the new township assessor law
The calling of a special session has beer
advocated by President Alexander
Speaker Bowles. Secretary VIM. Crime:
and others, who have been looking VI
the situation relative to avoiding the gen.
eral "mix-up" which seems inevitable
relative to this law.
The matter is now up TO Governor Fer
guson, and it remains with him whether
a special session will be called or not.
He has been made aware of the fact that
there are defects in the assessor law, but
has not gone into the matter far enough
TO warrant issuing a proclamation for
the reconvening of the legislative body.
AS the matter now stands there are
neither county or township assessors. and
an opinion from the attorney generals
Office states that practically the only
manner in which the errors can be rem
edied is by a special session.
The organic act of the territory provides
that a special session Of the legislature
can be called by the governor for some
specific purpose. If it is called TO remedy
the assessor law. it can take UP nothing
else at that time. The governor viii prob
ably decide tomorrow whether a special
session viii be called or not.
The opinion from the attorney generals
office. requested by Secretary VIM.
Grimes, given out today, is as follows:
Guthrie, O. T., March 20, 1903.
"Hon. VIM. Grimes, Secretary OF the Ter
ritory. Guthrie, oklahoma:
Dear Sir: The facts presented in your
letter Of the 18th of March, raised the
question, whether an enrolled bill, bear
ing the signatures of the speaker of the
house Of representatives the president Of
the senate, the approval of the governor,
the fling and authenticating marks of
the secretary of the territory. is conclu-
sive and unimpeachable, or whether re-
sort may be had to an engrossed copy of
the bill. the journals of the houses, of
parole testimony. to show that the meas
ure which passed the legislature was diff
fereTt from that contained in the enrolled
bill
The facts are, as shown by your let
ter that the bill which bore the desi :
nation Of Substitute House Bill No. 45."
relating to assessors. is on file in your
office and that it bears all the ear-marks
of authenticity. indicated above. 1t might
also be shown. and is no doubt the fact.
that the two sections of the bill which
passed both houses Of the legislative as
sembly the repeating clause and the sec
tion providing for a time in the future
for the act to take effect. were omitted
from the enrolled bill, which was signed
by the speaker of the house and president
OF the council. These being the facts. you
ask whether you must be guided by the
enrolled bill, and by il alone.
i do not deem it necessary to enter
upon an extended argument upon this
point; 1t is not Il new one; reported cases
disclose that the supreme court of all the
states in the uniors with the exception of
seven have decided. variously it may be
but decided this question. and the argu-
ments In favor OF the one theory or an
other have been amply presented. And
for US in the territory of Oklahoma, the
difficulty is not encountered of starting
in to settle a question for which we have
no precedent; for the supreme court of
the United States, in the case of Field VS..
Clark. has had before it the Identical
question of law here presented and the
decision rendered therein is the law which
must govern in the instance at hand
The above case IS reported in the 143
s. at page 649. The facts disclose
Opp. $50 and 65D that il was a case
brought by Marshall Field & Co. and
others against the collector OF the port
or Chicago To recover duties claimed to
have been Illegally exacted on imported
merchandise under the tariff act of con-
gress, approved October l. 1890. 1t being