Lewiston inter-state news. [volume] (Lewiston, Idaho) 1905-1906, 1905-10-20
taken toward paying Ne esse a.

nanded.
| This attitude Of the commissioner !
for, the purpose Of testing the questiol
a. to whether or not Nss Percs count
is to be compelled to pa ythis lare,
amount. This statement h made q
to the situation: SO
THE bill under whie hths distric
formerly in southern Shoshone was an
nexed win probably be contested as I.
its constitutionality, and other ques.
tions will be raised for the purpose o.
| protecting as far as possible the inter.
ests Of the taxpayers Of this county, or
whom the burden will fall The 6ener.
nj attitude Of the commissioners and
Of the county attorney indicates tina,
there will be no stone unturned to pre-.
vent an increase Of the tax levy. The
matter of the late decision Of the su-
| preme court in settling the dispute
between the two counties Ia regard
to the duties Of the accountants sp-
pointed to make the apportionment. OF
the indebtedness Of Shoshone county,
IL one which ID not generally under
J stood. When the accountants made
their first certificate, 1t was seen that
they had offered to pay certain sums.
particularly a sum Of about $1e,e0o
collected sas taxes from Ahs district
annexed from the time Of the annex
alton in November 1904. until the end
Of the year, which they had no right
to offer. and which. II accepted by Nex
Perce county. could probably not be
delivered, or, II delivered, could be
recovered by an ytaxpayer Of Shoshone
county in 9 suit against Nez Petce
county. The offer looked fair and IA
vorable to Nez Perce county on the
face Of II. but, on the advisce Of coun-
sci and Of the county attorney. It was
thought unwise to accept what could
delivered. Nez Perce county could not
keep. So the accountant for Nez Perce
county was instructed not to sign his
name to this certificate, and compel
Shoshone county to take the matter
into the supreme court for settlement
In this way. II was thought endless
lawsuits would be prevented, and the
basis Of apportionment of the debt
OF Shoshone county would be settleA
once for all. At the same time, there
were certain contentious of Nee Perce
county which II sustained by the su-
preme court. would nearly make up
the difference caused by the deduction
Of the $4,000 Of taxes. The matter
went to the supreme court and several
Of Nez Perce county's positions, were
upheld. It was decided that Nez Perce
should have the value Of all tax deeds
and property held by tax deeds in Sho-
shone county the value Of all tax GER
tificates, and the value of all county
property Of every description, in the
same proportion that she assumed Sho-
shones Indebtedness. to set of against
this same Indebtedness. The money
which had been collected AS taxes In
the annexed district, however. as had
been apprehended by both sides, went
to Shoshone county. SO, In reality, the
decision Of the supreme court although
il appeared on its face to be adverse
to Nez Perce county, was not unfaxor-
able; and il was very favorable to
both counties, in that it prevented the
accountants from certifying to an
amount which the officers Of Shoshone
county would have no right to turn
over to Nez Perce county. and which
Nez Perce could not retain.
yesterdays action Of the commits
sioners is for the purpose OF still fur
ther testing the question. There is no
great assurance that the supreme court
will declare the act unconstitutional,
although there appears to he strong
grounds to urge: but the interests OF
the taxpayers will by the commission
ers action be safeguarded at every
step, which has been their policy, and
the policy of the county attorney all
the way through.
TT Ia thought probable that not the
whole county. but onl ythe part an
nexed. win be made to pay the taxes
with which to meet the 100000 which
the warrants, II issued, vii call for,
The constitution OF Idaho provides
very plainly that when one part Of a
county u added to another the part
stricken OF shall be held to pay the
indebtedness which II brings. The
commissioners might rely on this. end
pay the warrants now. as they are de-
manded. but II has been thought best
to test the constitutionality OF the act
first. and hen. II the decfsioh Is ad.
verse. TO bring up this other question
later. by making a tax levy on the an
nexed portion" .t4.
/ II In understood the matter win be
Immediately taken into the supreme
court. OF the $4,000 rendered by sho-
shone county $4,000 belongs 10 south
| Shoshone schools and II IS probable
this sum will be paid to the schools
| by Shoshone regardless Of the rejection
| made OF the tender.