Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-04-30

reaching Importance because it carries
the possibility of Cascade county
losing thousands of dollars in taxable
property through the elimination OF
homestead reclamation acreage, not
perfected to the stage that final GER
tificates have been issued to the
entrymen. from taxation by the state
and county. has been handed down
by the United States supreme court.
according to word received Saturday
by County Assessor Harold Mady.
Information from the Jerry Collins
company of Washington. u. c., and
Helena. says that the supreme court
of the United States has just handed
tdown a decision to the effect that a
reclamation homestead is not subject
to taxation until perfected and final
certificate has BEEN issued. On
many, if not all projects, the land
has been taxed for county and state
purposes after submission of final
proof, but under this decision such
levies are illegal. This is an item
OF Importance to many settlers on
government projects"
Conflicts With Ford Opinion
This decision covers a point IN
which Mr.. Mady has sought %enlighten-
ment since he became assessor. and is
in direct conflict with an opinion rem
dered early in 1920 by former At
torney General S. c. Ford, Cascade
county reclamation lands have been
assessed and taxed after final proof
has been made, and it is estimated
by Assessor Mady that at least IS
per cent of the reclamation land in
this county will be cut from the tax
. 1St np oH.n,rt &C <ha Jn;o, -,;,e
this practice. Irrigated lands have
been taxed on the basis of from $50
to $65 an acre and unirrigated recla-
nation lands at from SO 10 $50 an
acre.
The attitude of the United States
supreme court is shown in its dis
position of the case of William Irwin
against Samuel +. Webb. county
treasurer. ct al. on appeal from the
district court of the United States
for the district of Arizona. The
higher court. in handing down an
opinion, March 20, 1922, states the
case thus:
Irwin's Complaint
"The appellant Irwin. a citizen of
California. filed his bill of complaint in
the district court against the treasurer.
the assessor. the county attorney. the
sheriff and the members of the board
of supervisors of MarcicOpa county,
Arizona, citizens of Arizona. He aver
red that he had an interest AS Il home
stead entryman, under the general
homestead act of congress of May :.
1862. and the reclamation act of June
IL. 1922. in land included within the
Salt River reclamation project in Mari
cops county; that he had not fulfilled
Hany of the conditions by him to be
performed before the title 10 the land
should vest in him, that meantime it
was the property of the United States
n not subject to taxation ny a state;
that he brought suit in behalf of him
self and other reclamation HON .stcdd
entrymen within the Salt River project,
and their assigns similarly situated. de-
string to avail themselves of the bene-
fits of it; that the defendants lad
levied and assessed taxes against these
homestead premises of the plaintiff
and had demanded payment OF them,
and threatened to collect Them by suit
and sale Of such lands. and to assess
them in the future: that such action
was in contravention of article 4. sec
ton three of the federal constitution.
deprived him and his fellow entrymen
of a privilege and immunity secured to
them as citizens of the United States.
deprived them of property without due
process of law. and denied them equal
protection of laws, all under the Four
amendment.
He prayed for an injunction against
the defendants and their successors in
and each of them as taxing
authorities in Maricopa county. from
further assessing said lands. collecting
taxes already assessed. or bringing
suit TO collect the taxes as delinquent
or to sell such interests. After answer
and reply, the case was heard on an
agreed appeal or statement of facts.
The district court dismissed the bill
the court on it's merits without I
opinion. This is a direct appeal from s
the district court under section 23S {
Of the Judicial code. as amended .Janu-
airy Is. 1915. because the suit is one p,
involving the construction or applica- {
ion of the constitution of the United |
States &
In the discussion Of the case. the j.,
court took occasion to discuss a num- q
of interesting questions incidental $
y involved and, in conclusion, held:
No Equitable Title t
"Of the taxes here complained Of.
hose from 1907 until 1916 were levied U
the secretary of the interior. L
q January. 1917. had fixed for this II
a farm unit of 40 acres. 10
which each entry must conform. Ger I
ainly until the area which the entry 4
nan could receive was ascertained. no y
'quitable title could pass. f
After the farm unit was estab- a
lshed, the entryman had two years in o
which to fulfill the requisites of the Il
tatute. One of these. and is import Il
mt as any. was the filing of the final G
ffidavit showing that he had per- p
the conditions precedent to :
citing a patent. which he bad to pre- \
ent to the land office for approval
final certificate, which. as we have
aid. gave him equitable title.
From an exhibit to the bill. the
ccuracy of which is not controverted.
appears that of the class of 40 en-
rymen for whom the plaintiff sues.
4 received a final certificate in 1919, 4
nd that %. including the plaintiff. had h
OF received a final certificate when h
bill was filed. As to the former. W
of all taxes against them n
,r the years 1907 to 1918. inclusive. .
as illegal. and the defendants should 81
e enjoined from taking any steps TO Il
collection. a,
"As to the latter. collection of all 81
assessed prior to the filing of
le bill, and all future assessments for re-