The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1907-04-03
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3. 1907.
LIVESTOCK TAXES REPEALED

LIVESTOCK TAXES REPEALED.
Among the laws enacted by the tenth
assembly is one which abolishes the
special taxes upon cattle, horses,
sheep and other livestock. This mat.
ter is of considerable interest to Mon.
tana stockmen, but the River Press
has not observed any mention of it in
newspaper reports of legislative pro-
ceedings.
These special taxes upon Montana
livestock are abolished by House Bill
No. 4lS, whose titleistates Its purpose
as follows: "Sections 1890, 3016, 3046
and 3O76 of the Political Code, and
all acts amend atory of said sections
or any of them or supplemental to any
of said sections, and which:provide for
special taxes on cattle, horses, sheep,
etc., be and the same are hereby re-
pealed."
The sections of the Political Code
above mentioned require the imposi.
ton OF special tax levies upon the
various classes of livestock to pro.
vide revenue for the stock inspector
and detective fund, the2 stock indem.
nifty fund, theisheep inspector and 10.
demnity fund, Hand the wolf bounty
fund. In Chouteau county last year
they amounted to 64lmills on the VAL
uation of cattle sand.. horses, and 5
mills upon the assessed value of
sheep.
The state livestock funds having
been deprived of revenue by the re.
peal Of these taxes, the tenth assembly
made small appropriations for the
stock indemnity and sheep inspection
funds. There is said to be a balance
of about $40. 600 in the stock inspector
and detectivei fund, and this amount
will be largely increased by adding
to it the unclaimed balance from the
sales of e~strayscattle, as provided in
House Bill No. 1863.
No provision, so far as known, was
made for maintaining the wolf bounty
fund, which in recent years was re
plenished by a special tax levy of ~
mills upon livestock. 1T that Is the
situation, there will be no funds with
which to pay wolf bounties.
The actioniof the tenth assembly ir
repeating these special livestock taxes
vas due to an opinion rendered by
Attorney General SGalen, which de-
clared they were unconstitutional. Mr.,
Galen's opinion was, in part, TO this
effect:
".As to whether.one class Of proper
ty could be subjected to a higher rate
than other classes .under the provi
sions of the constitution, provided the
highest rate did not exceed the limita'
ton prescribed lis q question of sui
ficient doubt to justify its submission
to the supremescOurt, for the reasor
that the authorities are in conflict
and no decision OF :the subject has
eve been rendered by the suprem.
court of Montana. 1.-The general rule
however, as deduced from the author
titles, appears to be whether 1.-THE con
stitutional provision requires uni
formity in the imposition of taxes, il
which case taxinglclasses at diferen
rates 10 permitted, or. whether sucl
provisions provide flor equality an,
uniformity, in w%hichicase the rate i'm
posed upon each lclass lselected TO
taxation must be identical: such pro
visions unite 10 requiring that eacl
member of q class in the one case, o
each member ofiStheslclasses in th
other case. must proportionately bea
its burden with e~achlaud every othe
member Of the classl or classes re
spectively, rs thelcase,may be.
1.-The system adopted in other states
Is Washington, California, ldah'
and Wyoming is tol either make al
preparations out Of the general fun
Of the state treasury for paying bour
ties, etc., or under constitutional Pre-
visions similar to our constitution
to vest in the county commissioners
authority to levy X for such pun
poses, in which case the bounty woul
be paid from the county treasury II
stead of from the state treasur,
North Dakota has a law similar I
the one on our statute books, but
does not appear to have ever been b,
fore the courts for Interpretation q
consideration as to its constitutio
atty"