The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1914-10-08

nors shall be subject to taxation.
Pursuant to said act of congress the
state proceeded to assess such lands
for taxation. In due time action was
brought on the part of the members OF
said Five Civilized Tribes to enjoin the
collection Of taxes on such lands be-
lginning with the year 1909. In Glea-
son ct al VS.. Wood, Treasurer, 2S Ok
lahoma, 502, on March 81, 1911, the SUI
preme court OF this state held said
lands to be taxable. On May 13th,
| 1912, the supreme court Of the Unit
ed States (224 u. S. $50; Sc L. Ed DAD
reversed the decision OF the supreme
court of the state and held said act
of congress void as violating certain
Indian treaties, and that said lands
We're non taxable for a certain num-
ber of years under the provision oil
said treaties.
On October 1. .S190S, the state board
OF equalization made levy of l Ia
mills upon a dollar of the valuation
of all the taxable property in the state
to pay items of state expense from the
admission of the state to July l, 1908,
and also for the additional fiscal year
beginning on July I, 1908, and ending
with July 1, 1903, covering a period of
Ipinateen- and ona-h half months
the collection of these taxes and the
circuit court of the United States for
the western district of Oklahoma en-
joined all of that part of the tax lev
led for the fiscal year beginning on
July 1st, 1908, and ending with July
1st, 1909. This decision was after
wards affirmed by the circuit court
of appeals for the Eighth circuit.
(Ritterbusch VS.. A. T. & S. r. r. Co,
III C. c.. A., 154.) am advised that
this case is now pending on appeal in
the supreme court of the United States.
The legislature of 1910 passed an act
entitled, "An Act providing for the
levy and collection of a gross revenue
tax from public service corporations
in this state" and from persons en-
gagged in the oil production, mining or
of coal, and similar occu-
pations.
Thereafter the Wells Fargo Express
filed its bill for an injunc-
ton in the circuit court of the United
States for the Western district Of Ok
seeking to enjoin the collection
Of these taxes. Three federal Judges
sitting in the circuit court granted the
Injunction and the state auditor ap-
pealed to the supreme court of the
United States. In February, 1912, that
court held that the act violated the
commerce clause to the federal consti- |
tuition. Meyer vs. Wells Fargo q
Co., 223 U. s.. 29S)
l refer specifically to these tax suits
TO show why these deficiencies arose.
The revenue having been provided by
the leVying of these taxes to pay the |
estimated expenses for the state gov
eminent during such years, the issu-
ance of the warrant carried an as
signment of the right TO that amount 1
If the provided revenue. When the 1
-evenue fails and the deficiency occurs !
he state owes that amount, to the I
holder of the warrant. Although on
recount of the litigation contesting the
yalidify of these taxes extending over I
. period Of years and the state board
,f equalization during such years did |,
,ot levy a tax to meet these deficien-
,ies vet the liability of the state still
'emained and the power Of the state
board Of equalization 20 make such
evy was not exhausted but still ex- |,
sted. CHaskell VS.. Reigel. ct al, 26
okla. SD II
The question was squarely up TO the
tate board Of equalization to levy a L
ak to pay off this deficiency or issue
unding certificates termed funding
,onds. (Cruce VS.. American National
bank, s5 Okl. 4s.) The board compos-
d of the governor. state treasurer, and
ttorney general, elected to issue the
unding bonds 10 the holders In lieu of
ne state warrants. The funding bonds !
ssued in lieu oe these warrants could "
ot be sold by the state, they were
merely issued 20 the holders OF said I
rarrants in lieu Of the same. The lS
unding bonds issued in lieu OF the :
iarrants became merely another man.
Ter or means Of evidencing the same
ebt. The debt existed before the is
uazce Of the funding bond; the fund [
IL bonds added nothing to the valid Is
tv of debt II merely provided for '
definite and certain time for the 1
ayment OF the interest. reducing same h
-om six per cent per annum to four {
nd one-half per cent per annum. a
hese funding bonds were not issued s
v virtue OF Section 23. OF Article 10. {
the constitution. The supreme court q
Z the state so held in the opinion con- b
ruing this provision in which opinion r
did not participate being disqualified n
ON sitting in that case on account OF D
ling interested IN some OF the war II
.nts. Said section % is as follows:
The state may. 70 meet casual def 9
Is or failure. in revenues, or for ex- o
.uses not provided for, contract debts; q
Il such debts, direct and contingent.
nely or in the aggregate. shall not =
any time, exceed four hundred thou 81
nd dollars. and the moneys arising
4