The Brookings register. [volume] (Brookings, Brookings County, S.D.) 1903-1971, 1914-08-27

have been suggested but the Law con.
templates but one and that is by the
taxation Of all property.
This method is fair to all, as every.
body uses roads-and those who don't
sre dependent on those who do. As
We have no state aid as many a
have, each county through its county
commissioners is the highest political
body or power we in South Dakota
have 10 look 10 for a substantial road
fund. II the county commissioners
make no levy for a road fund road
building cannot be of much conse.
Quence in that county.
We lead few in reckoning with other
states and are led by many. A great
procession is passing US while we
sleep in apathy. New York, Pennsyl-
vania, California. Oregon, Washington
and Minnesota, for instance, pay from
two million 10 fifteen million dollars
each year for highway construction.
We are doing better each year but
could do much more. The levy by
counties for road fund since the lew
law is in operation totals as follows
In 1911, Lawrence only less
IMAM $500. ...............S $4,000
In 1912 with 25 counties re-
ferending the road law, less
than 10O, 900
In 1913 hfty-three Counties. 561.622
The remaining seven counties
1913) made no levy at all, namely.
Codington. Grant, Hamlin, Lincoln,
Moody, Sphinx and Turner.
The time for the next levy by the
Board OF County Commissioners is
Tuesday, September l. 1914. 1t is
hoped by the State Highway Commits.
sion that all the counties in the state
will make liberal appropriations for
county roads for ext year.
In a few counties Of the state the
law was wrongly interpreted, the
NONHN! SOLILAASSloncIo CldlllluS t0dI
the county road funds had to be ex-
pended in the township from which it
came. 1t is strange that misunder-
standing Of a good law results in more
than the poor laws we have.
The following ruling by the Attorney
will throw the necessary light
on this point:
Aberdeen, S. D., June 26, 1914.
Mr.. r. A. Durham,
States Attorney, Clark, So. Oak.
Dear Sir:
l have your inquiry of June 23rd,
you refer to section 13 Of
221 of the laws of 1911, as
amended by section 6 of chapter 232
Of the laws of 1913, and wherein you
ask if it is necessary under the law to
expend the money raised by taxation,
provided by this chapter, within the
townships from which it is received, or
whether the Commissioners may, il in
heir discretion it is for the benefit of
he people of that township, expend
he taxes on roads outside of that par
ocular township?
You will note that this section was
amended by the 1913 legislature and
he words "as far as equitable" omit
ed. This section prior to it's amend
nent had been construed by the legal
of the state, and practi.
ally all of the states attorneys, as
the county commissioners with
wide discretion in the expenditures
If these funds, and as allowing them
o expend the fund received from any
ownship for the construction or repair
If highways in any place that would
De of benefit to the township, and we
leld that it would not be necessary to
the fund in that particular
ownship from which the money was
received.
At the time this amending was con-
iidered by the highway committee in
he legislature, the effect Of the omis-
zion of the words "as far as possible"
vas considered, and the members of
he committee decided that the omis-
'ion of the words would not change
he effect of the section, which opinion
vas concurred in by members of the
judiciary committee.
! will state, therefore. that I concur
With you in your construction of the
and am of the opinion that the
of these funds is wholly
the discretion of the board of
commissioners, and in the alb
'ence of an abuse Of that discretion
hey may expend the money wherever
their opinion it would be most bene-
icial to the people of the township.
Trusting this will answer your in
JURY, l remain,
Very truly yours,
Royal G. Johnson,
Attorney General.
Tins We note that the road Law NJ