The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1906-11-07

presumption must be that they did
not consider that any legislation in
the particular case was necessary.
| Where the legislature does not pre-
scribe any such regulations, the
rule is that the old corporation owns
all the public property within her
new limits. and is responsible for
! all debts contracted by her before the
act of separation was passed" Lar
! annie county VS.. Albany county, ~
U. 5. 307. 23 L. ed. 552.
In this state, under the constitu-
! ton, Benton county is subject To the
payment of a just proportion of the
existing debts and liabilities of the
parent comfy. Section Of the act
creating Benton county we believe
must be harmoniZed in order to be
sustained, with the constitutional
provision; that is, the legislature, i /
creating this county, intended by the
section providing for the adjustment
of the debts and liabilities that Ben
| ton county should be liable for Il
just proportion of the existing debts
and liabilities and Indicated meth
cd of determining this proportion.
| Under the general law the new coun-
| ~ is entitled TO It's proportion of the
| properly. We are disposed to con
strue the term property" in this
connection To include everything sub
ject to ownership belonging to the
parent county. and therefore as in
Guiding taxes.
Washington county VS.. Weld coun-
| ty. ~ Colorado, 1872.
In Re Fremont county. s Wyom-
ing /
Courts have not been in harmony
upon the rights of the officers of
the parent county, Independent of
statutory enactment to exercise the
necessary jurisdiction to enforce
the collection of taxes levied prior
to the division in the territory sci
apart in the new county. For the
purpose. as we contsrue the law, of
avoiding any confusion or doubtful
exercise of power, the general law of
this state provides that all taxes lev
led before the division was made
or boundaries changed, must be
collected by the officers Of and be-
long to the county in which the ter
ritory was situated before the divis-
ion or change. On behalf of Benton
county it is claimed that these taxes,
Notwithstanding this provision. con
stitute a portion of the property to
be considered in the adjustment of
the rights of the two counties.
On behalf of Yakima county. it is
claimed that this statute eliminates
all taxes from the adjustment and
that said taxes are not to be con-
sidered either in the division of
property, or in the adjustment of the
debts and liabilities.
We confess the statutes are. not
as clear as we would like to have
found them. and that Of the account
ing between two counties Chief Jus
tice Potter. in the case of In Re
Fremont county, s Wyoming 40,
says
"Strict rules of law are difficult
of application 10 such matters and
often produce unfair results. That
no relation of debtor or creditor in
any strict sense existed between the
old and new counties: and that
what is just and fair is more to be
regarded than the application of
Str1ct rules OF law.
I'VE will endeavor to follow, in
the adjustment of the rights of
these TWO counties, the rule indicat-
ed by the chief justice in that case;
namely that what is just and fair
is more to be regarded than the APP
plication of strict rules of law.
Holding as we do that property in
cludes taxes. we contsrue the two
sections together and hold that the
taxes as hereinafter stated shall be
considered with other property in
the determination of the rights of
Benton county. but that this asset
goes and shall be retained out of the
property by Yakima county. In the
case of State eX rel. Barton VS.. Hop
kins. "A Washington SO. the court
held that cash assets of county may
be deducted from outstanding in
debtedness for the purpose of deter
mining whether the Indebtedness eX-
ceeded the constitutional restric-
tons, and further held in the same
case that the tax rolls for the cur
rent year and the unpaid taxes upon
those OF prior years may be treated
as such cash assets. In this case
the court treated the payment of the
taxes as certainty. We believe in
the adjustment of the rights be
| tween Yakima and Benton counties
| that the application of this rule
would be unfair to Yakima county,
but that the auditors of the respect
| i've county should make some reason
able allowance of the taxes to be
considered for failure to collect.
In Wisconsin, by Laws of 1878, c.
So, and Laws of 1879, c. 1877. Bur
nett county was authorized to Dor
row from the trust funds of the
state 500 900, to be used in aiding
the construction of a railroad, and
to be repaid with interest, in fifteen
annual installments. Until the
whole amount should be repaid, the
railroad company was required to
pay annually into the state treasury