The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1915-01-29
Holds Act Under Which Refund of
Certain Sums Claimed Uncon-
stitutional Demurrer of
County Sustained
LARGE AMOUNT OF
MONEY INVOLVED
County Attorney Announces that
Suits to Set Aside Judgments
Rendered in Previous Cases
Will Be Started

That a decision by Judge Clay in
The district court this morning will
mean thousands of dollars to Grady
county is the belief of the county at
torney's office. The decision applied
to the Indian taxes paid to the county
upon some of which judgments for
the refund of the taxes by the county
nave been rendered. Following the
decision, the county attorneys office
mas stated that demurrers and motions
10 yacate such judgments will be filed
The case in which sdch decision was
rendered was E. b. Johnson against
GRADY county and was presented on
demurrer of the county attorney to the
petition of the plaintiff. This case
was filed by f. B. johnson for the re-
eoyery of taxes heretofore paid on In
dian lands, he contending that the In
dian lands of the state are not taxable
under the decisions of the United
States supreme court, and the supreme
court of Oklahoma, and that he is en-
titled to recover from the county
taxes that had already been paid on
such lands.
The demurrer Of the county was
based upon the rule Of law which re-
quires that taxes enormously paid
must be paid under protest in order to
give the taxpayer a right to recover
such taxes paid. The plaintiffs petit
tlon in this case, it is stated, failed to
allege that the taxes were paid under
protest The plaintiff was represent
ed by Bond, Melton & Melton, and the
county was represented by County At
torney John H. Venable and Assistant
County Attorney A. K. Swan.
The plaintiff contended that section
IA, chapter 152, sessions laws of 1910
u relieved him from the necessity Of
paying such taxes under protest
Counsel for the county thereupon rails
ed the contention that that part of
such act was Unconstitutional and void
and gave the plaintiff no such right.
The provisions of the act in question.
as quoted by the county attorney. after
providing that the county commission. |
ers should have the power to correct |
erroneous assessments of taxes, pro-
vided:
And if any such taxes, so erro-
neously assessed, shall have been paid.
the same shall be a valid charge
against the county and shall be refund
ed by the board of county commission.
ers and the amount of such refunded
taxes, which have been paid over to
any municipality or to the state, shall
De deducted from the tax money due |
the state or such municipality at the
next settlement"
This provisions" said Mr. venable,
was section IA of the act creating the
office of county assessor and creating
the county board of equalization, and
prescribing their respective duties.
Section 81 of article of the Oklahoma
constitution requires that all bills
when passed by the legislature shall
contain but one subject and that that
subject shall be expressed in the title
10 the act, making an exception OF
revenue measures"
MIR. Venable and Mr.. Swan contend
ed that the title to the act Of 1901
did not contain any reference to the
provision Of section IA relative to such
refund, and therefore that section Ia
was unconstitutional. Counsel for the
plaintiff contended that the act OF
l91O-l9 was a revenue measure and
specially excepted from the operation
of the requirement of the constitution
that in the title to the act should be
expressed the subject of the act.
Counsel for the county then con.
tended that if the act of 1901 was a |
revenue act, the whole act was un-
constitutional and void under section
SO, article Of the constitution, which
provides that mo revenue bill shall
be passed during the last five days of
the session of the legislature"