Belt Valley times. [volume] (Armington, Mont.) 1894-1977, 1924-01-31
RAIL WAY FILES
SUIT FOR CASH

Falls, Cascade, Belt and Neihart, ana
levies for building purposes by sehoo
district No. 20, and for provision q
free text books by District No. s, eha
Great Northern Railway compams
filed suit IN district court Monday d
recover 8 total Of sl,77sls paid unauu
protest to County Treasurer M. ID
Nicholson, November so, last. a. haai
Of the company's 1928 assessment az
fected by the protested levies.
The plaintiff admits the legality If
but 10 mills Of the levy Of each nsmmf-
pality for general administrative pzK-
poses. 1t further admits the legazsAy
Of certain additional Ievies for apaaS-
fic special purposes In each city, @w-
cept Neihart. OF = levy Of rs Enaan
by that municipality IN 1928. the c0m-
pany protests is mills as illegal
The basis Of the protest against azl
these levies Ia that the state law -
alleged 70 prohibit municipalities 9e
the size Of the four involved, lsvyamm
more than 10 mills for general adznan-
istrative purposes. and that the Isvias
attacked are not legitimate special
levies, but are OF general character.
The cities, with their total 1s2m
levies, the portion protested BY sAm
company, the assessed valuation oA
company property affected. and sAs
full amount Of the 1928 assessment
which 10 questioned. are as follows
Great FalIs--Totnl levy. 2s milh,
protested five mills; assessed vmlwn-
ton affected. 1883 .e70, 1923 aasaun-
ment under protest. 81 ,eAs36.
Belt--Total levy, 2o mills; protewead
five mills, on $685. protested as-
sessment, gi2e.l9.
Caacade-TotAl levy, 10 miIla: rm1-
tested six mills on S2zAe8; paUt@@aas@
assessment sSe.12.
Nelhart- Total levy, rs mills; nro-
tested is mills ''for general or admkn-
istrative purposes. described as sueh.
or for purposes attempted to be msaKa
described, but
IN fact mere details Of general nnumi-
cipal or administrative purposes, fAa
complaint says. valuation affecsaa
si1 ,0O4; protested assessment g17g.es.
With regard to school district Sss
the complaint sets out that in addigiem
to the common school maintsnanss
levy for 1928 Of ak mills, the coum&y
made q levy Of 10 mills for buiIdGng
additional schools; and that the coza-
pany accepts these Is valid. Howwvws.
an additional levy az six mills appase-
able for five years Is contested. This
levy IL said to have been made afssr
he board Of trustees Of the district
pretended to- hold an election IN 1919
% determine II the levy could be
made in order to build q high schOel
n Belt.
The complainants argue that since
70 election was held In 1920, 1871
922 or 1928, as to Ievies Of those
rears, the special school building levy
Is applied to those years was illegal
The 1928 levy Is the only one con-
ested with a view to recovery Of
axes, as taxes were paid by the e0ma-
any the previous years without sn
ttempt TO recovery. The amoumk
ontested is ss57.0i. The complaint
sserts, in addition to other argumsmts
gainst the levy and assessment, that
here is now IN the funds Of said dis
rict neither building nor building
und" to show the use to which sonse
q, 900 Scoiiected under the school
uiIding levy has been put.
With reference to school district B.
le complaint sets forth that in July
923, its trustees did not certify to
le county commissioners an estimate
the amount Of money required %
rovide free text books for the eElsu-
q school year, "but, nevertheless.
pom the mere direction Of said txms-
es and without inveski-
alton the beard Of county
mnissioners pretended 70 levy
! alleged special tax Of four rails
Jon the taxable property in said dis-
ict.v
The plaintiff further sets out kAat
district No. In the last four yearm
eceding 1928 there was more fAan
500 collected for free text books
the manner outlined. but not 10 ex-
ed $1,000 has been spent for saeh
oks and that more than "a 900 saoaa
the balance Of the fund when kh@
2s levy was made The e0apAazan
" the levy Of 1928 was
ceptive, and an abuse of dlaezwRs