The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1921-10-19

Ae, of 1919 Legislature 10 Declared
Unconstitutional In opinien
Handed Down Yesterday BY
state Supreme Court.
ACT PERMITTED OWNERS
TO LlQUiDATE TAXES
Opinion VIII Not Affect Saving for
Grady County Treasury. Sanders
Says: rss Resale 10 be Held
Here Nest Month.

W an cpinlnn hanucd duNn hy tho
State Surcmc court yesterday IN
the case. board Of county commits.
HIoncru of Grady county. the city Of
chickanha and A. V. Foster Va.
Harry IIammcrly. tho decision of
the district court here II reversed
and house bill No. 265 of tho ses.
sion laws Of 1919. providing for tHe
liquidation Of delinquent taxes and
assessments In eltlea and towns OF
over $500 population. was declared
unconstitutional.
This ruling means no saving to
the county treasury as the titles to
the property that wonld have been
affected by the measure declared
unconstitutional will be cleared IN
the tax sale 10 be held horo next
month. according 10 l.. A. Sanders.
county treasurer House Bill No. 2e5
sIth measure drafted 10 expedite
the clearing @: titles Mr. Sanders
says.
The bill made IL possible for own.
ers Of property which had taxes
against Il in excess OF the actual
value TO so into court and obtain
o liquidation Of the taxes and get
a clear title TO tricir land by pay.
ing into tho court the amount Of
money decided upon by tho court.
This money SO paid In was. BY tho
court, to be apportioned to the vari.
GUS taxes. such as paving. special as
aessmonts and ad yalorem taxes.
Through such adjudication by the
court II was possible for a man own.
Ing property worth $4,000, against
which there were taxes amounting 10
10000. to go into court and
through the court order obtain clear
title to his property by purchase at
the price determined by the court.
say $4,000. which was to be applied
to his $4,000 worth of. delinquent
taxes in much the same manner as
bankruptcy proceedings enable a
man In business TO settle his obli.
cations with an apportlonment Of
the funds he has on hand.
Tho bill was declared null and
void because It Is special In its
nature, while section If of articles
10 Of the state constitution sets
forth that taxes shall be levied and
collected by general laws, accord
ing to the opinion.
Constitution Limits Legislation"
There is no reason why a differ
ence in population should make any
difference In the collection of taxes"
the court held. an passing n law
governing the collection Of taxes In
towns Of $500 and more population
the legislature certainly passed u
special act. which is beyond its pow
ers where general laws can be
passed.
"The constitution is restriction
of law-making and not an authority
for it and when it specifies how q
thing shall be done 1t shall be done
in that manner or not at all. The
county treasurers have been by gen.
eral acts empowered with the collec-
tion Of taxes and this duty cannot
be transferred to the district courts
by the legislature.
"An act which provides for col
lecting taxes In q certain manner
from persons living In a city OF
more than $500 population is GER
tainly special legislation when per-
sons living in towns Of less popula-
tion are subject to different regula-
tions in regard to the collection of
taxes
The opinion was written by JUS
tice F. e. Kennamer and concurred
in by Chief Justice John B. Harris.
on, Vice Justice John II. Pitchford.
and Justice John r. Johnson, Justice
Neal E. McNeill. Justice George NJ.
Nicholson. Justice G. II. Eltinge and
Justice John r. Miller.
The test case was carried to the
supreme court by William Stacey.
who was then county attorney o;
Grady County.