, 1935-05-30
.HIDALCO TAX
/ RULING GETS
CLOSE STUDY
Residents Wonder If
Decision Means Old
Assessments Also
Must Be Paid
Especial 70 The Herald

EDLNBURG, May 3d. Decision
Iof Justice S. II. German OF the
AcommiSiSon OF appeals OF the Texas
6supreme court in declaring n
constitutional a law passed IN 1928
by the Texas legislature in releas-
ing the inhabitants and property OF
aHidalgo county from state al val
Acrem taxes created something Of a
furore in the entire Lower Rio
| Grande Valley Wednesday. The
taxes were released 70 provide funds
with which TO retire a bond issue
of more than s 10000 for con
istruction OF a flood control system
Following the disastrous flood on
the Rio Grande in 1922.
According 10 senate bill 28l, pass
Jed by the 30th legislature on April
Y. 1923, Hidalgo county vas released
from payments Of all state ad val
orem taxes and three-tourths OF
the state occupation tax for a per-
iod OF Is years for the purpose OF
/ preventing further damage from
! Rio Grande floodwaters. In 1924,
voters in the county authorized q
\ bond issue OF over 81 100000 for
4 construction OF a flood control sys-
tenn, which vas built and completed
about 1927.
Decides All Exempt
Since the bill became effective,
Hidalgo county tax collectors and
assessors have not collected any
state ad valorem taxes for state
purposes and only one-fourth OF
the occupation tax. They have COL
lecaed the state school and pension
taxEs.
In 1884. Frank 3. Freeland, then
county tax assessor, studied the
matter and voiced the belief that
ths bill was intended TO relieve
Hidalgo taxpayers from all state
taxes, including school and pension
fund taxes. Upon comforting with
state officials IN Austin, IL was
decided TO institute a friendly suit,
the litigation being styled Geo. II.
Sheppard. Comptroller, VS.. County
Of Hidalgo.
Judge Bryce Ferguson issued a
restraining order out OF the 92nd
civil district court preventing the
comptroller from collecting the tax
es being questioned. When the suit
went up on appeal, finally TO the
supreme court, Justice Germans
decision was the result.
There was wide discussion In the
Valley Wednesday of the probable
effects OF the decision but most
decisions were withheld until copies
Of the complete opinion could be
obtained.
County Judge John W.. Ewing sad
NE had not been informed OF the
supreme courts action except by
newSpapermen. He expected TO
receive detailed information On the
case from Robert L. Bobbitt, for
mer Texas encouragement who
represented the county IN the
litigation.
Sweeping Importance
State Representative Homer L
Leonard Of McAllen asserted the
derision was OF sweeping impor-
lance" He believed a number OF
counties which had been assisted
by tax release through the Aegisla-
tuer would be affected. "Ano. Ter
possible effect. II the ruling in the
aAUMA@AO CguAAlg NaoN aRRA~S w wi
er counties. will be the retarding
OF a sales TAX in Texas" he stated.
AT the rate at which the legislature
VIA releasing taxes to such a large
number Of counties. 1t a newt
able. that the general revenue OF
the state would soon be in suCl
shape that q sales tax. or some tax
other than a tax on real property,
must surely come"
Former State Representative w.
r.. Montgomery, Of Edinburg. who
represented Hidalgo county in the
legislature in 1923 and who put the
bill through the house and senate
to secure the county's release. was
hesitant about discussing the decis-
ion until more fully advised. He as
serted, however. that 1t was not the
intention OF the legislature. and I
told the legislature at the time. that
Hidalgo county was to be released