Ashland tidings. [volume] (Ashland, Or.) 1876-1919, 1913-12-29
Text Decision
City Tax Case

The decision of the supreme court
in the Ashland suit to keep from pay
ing road taxes is as follows. accord
ing to copy received by Attorney A.
K. Reames:
This is an appeal by defendants
from the judgment on writ OF re-
view issued on petition OF plaintiff
to review the proceedings of the
county court of Jackson county, Ore
Gon, in January, 1918, levying a
three-mill tax on all the taxable I
property of the county, including the |
property of plaintiff, situated within |
the limits OF the city of Ashland, in !
said county, for a road fund, pur-
suant to section 1920, L. o. L. The |
circuit court adjudged that plaintiffs
property is exempt from this tax by
virtue OF section /, article XVII OF
the charter OF Ashland o.. 1898, p.
1000, which section reads thus
The territory within the limits OF the
city of Ashland as now existing or
as may be hereafter extended is here
| by excepted out of the jurisdiction OF
the county court of Jackson county
| for licensing purposes and road pur-
poses, end the city council shall have
| full and exclusive jurisdiction over
the sam. The inhabitants of the city
shall be exempt from the payment OF
road taxes and assessment OF the
property within the city for road
work except such taxes as may be
| levied and assessed by the city coun-
Gil, and all such taxes shall be placed
in a separate fund and used for
street purposes within the limits OF
the city and not otherwise
Bean Writes Opinion.
"Bean, j. 1t is contended by coun-
sci for defendant that the foregoing
section of the Ashland charter must
be construed as exempting property
within the city of Ashland from the
payment only of one-half Of the tax
levied pursuant to section 1920, l.. o..
L., objectionable to the road districts
of the county, and not from the one
half OF the tax which is placed in a
county fund for general road pur-
poses, to be expended by the county
court on the roads and bridges in any
part Of the county. 1t is their con-
tention that section 1920, l.. y. L.,
provides for a composite tax, one-halt
thereof constituting a local district
) road tax and the remaining one-half
a general county tax equivalent &c
4 that formerly levied as mart OF the
general county fund for highway pur.
] poses. A glance at that section ol
1 the chatter reveals that the area with
in the limits of the city of Ashland Is
: excepted out of the jurisdiction Of
the county court of Jackson county
for road purposes, and further tina
the inhabitants of that city are eX
J. empt from the payment of road taxes
and the property within the city II
EXEMPT from assessment for roa(
work outside the city boundaries.
Similar Charter Provisions.
Similar provisions in munlcipa
charters have been upheld East Port
land VS.. Multnomah county, Ore
4 So; Multnomah county VS.. Sliker, /
Ore. 65; Oregon City VS.. Moore, 8
Ore. 215; Eugene VS.. Lane county
so Ore. 46S; City of Nyssa VS.. Ma
heur county, 54 Ore. 2S6; Tillamoo
City VS.. Tillamook County, 90 ore
t. 112. In the latter case Chief Justic
Mcbride, speaking for the court, said
1T is also suggested that the count
y court had no right to levy any ia
u for soad purposes within the city lin
its, and in this view we concur
has been the usual custom 10 eXemp
incorporated cities from the paynlen
of general county road taxes, and a
the Session at which the charter /
nuestion was passed, several munlcl
nal corporations were thus exempted
and il does not seem probable that Tn
legislature intended to make an e>
ception of Tllamook City,
= Legislative Intent.
-. "The legislature, as general RUE
'l' has constituted that part OF the cour
3. ties outside the limits Of the munic
* palities tax districts for the purpos
of providing funds for the improve
ment of the rural highways, and hf
IL EXEMPTED most of. the municipalltiC
C. from such taxes. This was undouD
at edly for the reason that the inhabl
ants of the cities and towns are sui
. iected to taxes for the purpose OF IN
W proving the streets and sidewali
lO within such municipalities. Eviden
ly the legislative intent was base
Z upon the principle that such a syste
hAation for roads and highwa!
would be approximately equal. Grf
on Limitations OF Taxing Power, etc
section 528. tax that is equal an
uniform throughout the taxing di
trict is not violative Of the provision
If section 80, article l, and sectic
1, article TX, of the constitution as
equality and uniformity Portlal
VS.. Multnomah county, 6 Ore. o.
- Cook VS.. Port of Portland, 20 Or
$50, $50.
Cooley on Taxation.
"It is said in Cooley on TaXatio
pages 257, 258, that under any sy
tenn of taxation, however wisely al
carefully framed, disproportiona
share OF the public burdens Will
. thrown on certain kinds of propert
because they are visible and tan
rm ible, while others are of a nature
are elude vigilance. 1t is only whe
ste statutes are passed which impose ia
in es on false and unjust principles,
re- operate to produce gross inequali
ON go that they cannot be deemed in