Case Name: CARRIKER v. LAKE COUNTY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1918-03-12
Citations: 89 Or. 240
Docket Number: 
Parties: CARRIKER v. LAKE COUNTY.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Moore concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 240–247

Head Matter:
Argued February 26,
affirmed March 12,
rehearing denied July 2, 1918.
CARRIKER v. LAKE COUNTY.
(171 Pac. 407; 173 Pac. 573.)
Statutes — Local Laws — Initiative—Powers of People of County.
1. Article IV, Section la, of the Constitution, providing that the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people by the Constitution are further reserved to the legal voters of every municipality and district, as to all local, special and municipal legislation of every character in and for their respective municipalites and districts, does not confer on the voters of a county power to adopt a law, authorizing the County Court to levy taxes for the payment of bounties on jackrabbits, in the absence of any enabling act passed by the legislature, or by the people of the whole state granting such power to the people of a county.
[As to construction of initiative or referendum provision in Constitution, statute or municipal charter, see note in Ann. Cas. 1916B, 819.]
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Constitutional Law — Self-executing Provisions — Initiative and Referendum — Power of People of County.
2. In the absence of an enabling act, the people of a county, as distinguished from the people of a city or town, cannot initiate and enact a local law; Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution, providing that the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people are further reserved to the voters of every municipality and district, as to local, special and municipal legislation therefor, not being self-executing, as is Article IV, Section 1, making the reservation to the people of the State, and being required to be construed with Article XI, Section 2, giving power to cities and towns, as distinguished from other municipalities, to make and amend their charters.
From Lake : L. F. Conn, Judge.
Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Harris.
This suit involves the question of whether the voters of Lake County can, in the exercise of the initiative and without an enabling act, enact a law authorizing the County Court to levy taxes for the payment of bounties on jackrabbits. A petition was signed by more than 15 per cent of the legal voters residing in Lake County and filed with the Secretary of State on July 7, 1916, asking that a proposed measure providing for the levying of taxes for the payment of bounties on jackrabbits killed in Lake County, be submitted to the voters of that county at the regular biennial election to be held on November 7,1916. The title and first two sectitíns of the measure read as follows:
“An act to authorize, empower and direct the county court of Lake County, Oregon, to provide for the payment of a bounty for the killing of jackrabbits in Lake County, Oregon, by the residents of said county; to levy a sufficient tax for the payment of such bounty and directing the payment of the same from the general fund of the county if such levy be not made; and to prescribe regulations for the manner of making the necessary proof of the number of rabbits killed and the rules under which such bounty shall be paid.
“Be it enacted by the people of the county of Lake, State of Oregon:
“Section 1. That the county court of Lake County - Oregon, be, and it is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to order paid from the general fund of said county, or from a special fund created for that purpose by the said county court, the sum of five cents for each jaekrabbit that may be killed within the boundaries of Lake County, Oregon, by residents of said county, from and after the taking effect of this act.
‘‘ Section 2. • It shall be the duty of said county court, at the regular term thereof for the purpose of levying taxes, to compute the estimated expenditure for the purpose of this act for the ensuing year, and to make a sufficient levy, either as a general county tax or a special ‘Babbit Bounty Tax,’ to cover such estimate, provided, that should the amount so levied in any one year be insufficient to pay the earned bounty for that year, or should the said county court fail, neglect or refuse to make such levy, the bounty provided for in this act shall be paid from the general fund of the said county”: See Chapter 4, Laws 1917.
The remaining sections relate to the manner of making proof of claims, and to the payment of bounties. The measure was submitted to the voters of Lake County pursuant to the petition. There were 1,049 votes for and 589 against the measure. On December 9, 1916, the County Court made a tax levy to meet the county expenses estimated for the ensuing year, including a tax “for jackrabbit bounty fund— four and eight-tenths mills.” If all the taxes had been paid the levy made by the County Court would have produced the following amounts:
“For jackrabbit bounty.................$45,217.27;
For general school purposes............ 32,028.90;
For general road purposes............. 27,803.31;
For all county purposes 'including payment of Lake County’s portion of State Tax........................79,130.22.”
The county assessor extended the total levy, on the assessment-rolls, against all the taxable property in Lake County and the sheriff proceeded to attempt to collect all the taxes levied by the County Court, including the tax levied for the purpose of paying bounties on jackrabbits. The plaintiffs, who are taxpayers residing in Lake County, paid all their taxes except the rabbit bounty tax, and then brought this suit to enjoin the collection of the rabbit bounty tax. The trial court overruled a demurrer to the complaint. The defendants declined to plead further and a decree was entered canceling the jackrabbit bounty tax, and enjoining the county officers from collecting it. The defendants appealed.
Affirmed.
For appellants there was a brief over the names of Mr. T. 8. McKinney, District Attorney, Mr. William 8. U’Ren and Mr. Arthur D. Hay, with oral arguments by Mr. McKinney and Mr. U’Ren.
For respondents there was a brief with an oral argument by Mr. W. Lair Thompson.
The constitutionality of initiative and referendum principle of government is discussed in notes in 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1192; 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 969. Reporter.

Opinion:
HARRIS, J. —
Article IX, Section 3, of the state Constitution provides that "no tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law." Unless the jackrabbit bounty tax was levied "in pursuance of law" it would contravene the Constitution and therefore would be invalid. There is no law authorizing the levy of the tax in question unless it can be said that the measure voted upon by the people of Lake County became a law when a majority of the voters by their ballots registered their approval of the measure on election day. The validity of the the measure depends upon whether the voters had power to enact it into a law for Lake County. No act has ever been passed by the legislature or by the people of the whole state granting unto the voters of a county the right to enact a jackrabbit bounty law for themselves. It is argued by the defendants that Article IV, Section la, of the state Constitution of itself, without the aid of an enabling act passed by the legislature or by the people of the whole state in the exercise of the initiative, grants to the people of a county the power to pass a law for their county. The instant case is controlled by Rose v. Port of Portland, 82 Or. 541, 556, 557 (162 Pac. 498), where we held that
"both sections (Art. IV, Section la, and Art. II, Section 2, of the state Constitution) recognize the necessity of a charter as the measure of the legislative power to be exercised by corporations and both sections contemplate that no local subdivision of government except' cities and towns can appropriate legislative power unto itself"; and that "no subdivision of gov ernment like a port or district can exercise power unless that power is first granted by some lawmakers authorized to legislate that power to the municipality or district."
Although the municipality in Rose v. Port of Portland was a port and the municipality in the instant case is a county, nevertheless the legal principle involved is identical in both cases. The opinion in Rose v. Port of Portland was the unanimous opinion of this court and represented the careful and deliberate judgment of all its members; and therefore for the reasons stated in that opinion and on the authority of that precedent and of Barber v. Johnson, 86 Or. 390 (167 Pac. 800), we hold that the voters of Lake County were without power to authorize the tax and that the jackrabbit bounty measure is void. The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled and the decree is affirmed. Affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Moore concur.