The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1915-12-29
Col. 0'NeiIl Receives Opinion Of
Attorney General Constituting
Law Enacted by Last
Legislature
NOT REPEALED BY
SUBSEQUENT ACT
Held That New Statute Effective
in Tiue to Save Payment
Of Tax on Present
Crop

Cotton and other farm products il
the raw state are exempt from tax
alton under law passed by the last
legislature, according to the opinion
Of the attorney general. received by
Col J. T. O'Neill of this city, in re
sponse to an inquiry.
On December 81. Colonel O'Neill
wrote to Attorney General Freezing as
follows:
1--WE passed an act at the last legis.
lature. exempting farm products in the
raw state, from taxation. See Acts
1915, page g.
Our purpose was to prevent the
nulcting the farmers about this time
OF year of from one to two dollars per
bale ON cotton. on the theory that all
cotton in bales at this season. on hand
January /, would be liable TO taxation
The same, as to other agricultural
products named in the act.
Il hear 1t rumored here. that You
have given an opinion that cotton in
bales must in spite OF this act. be
assessed for taxation after January
/, 1915. | write to know If such an
opinion has emanated from your office
and If so upon what grounds il is
based? II this be your construction
OF the law, II because the cotton buycr.
must take this burden into consider
alton, for II will mean more to him.
than his usual profit on bale, and he
will very naturally make the farmer
stand for the tax"
Replying to the above request.
Assistant Attorney General Smith
Matson said some there was some
question as to whether the law in
question was repealed by subsequent
act, but the states legal department
held that it had not been repealed. Mr..
Matson enclosed a copy of the opinion
which was rendered by the attorney
general in response to request from
Governor Williams last April. This
opinion, in part, was as follows:
'OKLAHOMA CITY. April 26,
1915.-To the governor: Some days
ago you presented to this office a
request for an opinion on the question
of whether or not cotton, corn,
wheat, oats and the like, while remain
ing in the raw state. are subject to
assessment and taxation on an ad va
loren basis this year
Replying you Fare advised that
house bill No IA of the last legisla-
ture, approved February 25, 1915, and
carrying the emergency, provides that
such products shall not be subject to
ad vaIorem tax, but shall be subject
10 the income tax law of the state.
This act amended section 1902, Re-
vised Laws OF 1910. Later the legis-
lature by house bill No. 81, approved
March II, 1915. which also carried an
emergency clause. again amended sec
tion 1902, supra, to read as follows:
All property in this state whether
real or personal, including the prop
erty of corporations, banks and bank
ers. except bonds OF this state, and its
counties. cities, towns, school districts
and other municipalities of this state
except such as is exempt shall be sub
ject to taxation, but the income of said
municipal bonds of this state shall be
taxable under the income tax law
These laws being both passed at
the same session of the legislature
and both amendatory of the same Sec
tion of the statute must be construed
together so as to make a harmonious
whole If possible.
1t may be contended that the latter
law repealed house bill No. IA, but in
this view we cannot conc ar, because
there is nothingin the latter law that
expressly repeals the former and the
language used, in our opinion, could
not be construed to that effect.
II was evidently the intention OF the
legislature to exempt such products
from ad valorem taxation, and to pro-
vide for their taxation under the in