OCR Text |
Show TAXES ON CATTI.K. ' An Important Question Argued Before the Colorado Supreme Court. DExvErt, April 11. An important rase was argued bcforo llio supremo court commission, being that of tins county commissioners of Pueblo vs. W. J. Wilson. Tho suit grows out of mi assessment of taxes against cattle and horses belonging to Wilson by tho treasurer treas-urer of Puublo county, and is rendered doubly Important from tho fact that it will settle a vexed question which has long been in controversy between cattle men and county oilielals. In .September, 1884, Wilson bought 6.853 head of cattlo and 700 horses iu Kansas, and drove them to Pueblo in October to winter them. About January Jan-uary 27 the treasurer of Pueblo couuty made an assessment on tho cattle and horses, and notified Wilson if tho taxes were not paid by February t they would proceed to collect them by legal process. Wilsou uppealed to the board of couuty commissioners, who decided against him, and finally under protest he paid tho taxes, amounting to $1,227.33 after a reduction 011 tho origi- Dal assessment had been made. Wilson then instituted suit against the commissioners for tho recovery of tho money paid for taxes on tho ground that all his property had been duly as-sussed as-sussed at tho regular assessing period, ju May, 1881, and hence the cattle having hav-ing been driven into the county from another state after that time, they were not liable to taxation in that county until the next assessing period. The ease was tried iu the district court of Arapahoo county, Wilsou being then a resident of Denver. The case was heard by Judge Decker, who decided against tho commissioners on the ground that the general law did not impose a tax on other taxable property prop-erty taken from one county to another after the assessing period, and tins same Jaw would apply to cattle brought from another stale to any county. The case was then taken to the supremo court by the commissioners and tho arguments were heard bcforo the commissioners, C. J. Hard of Pueblo, appearing for the commissioners, and Mr. llartell of Patterson Pat-terson & Thomas, for Mr. Wil.sou. Tho attorney for the plaintiff cited t'lauso No. 283,1 of the general statutes, which provides that cattle driven into a county prior to the last of December is liable to be assessed for taxes for that year unless it has been assessed in some other county. Ho based further argument argu-ment on section , article 10, of tho Colorado constitution, which says: All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subject within tho state." Mr. Hard said the legislature had the right to classify different kinds of property to be taxed. Mr. Harttell made a strong and tolling toll-ing argument for Wilsou. He. claimed that the law providing for tho taxing of cattle driven from one county to another an-other prior to December ;il ilid not apply to cattlo driven from another btate, and that since tho law did not apply ap-ply to other taxable property which could bo moved from ono county to another an-other between the assessing periods, it was unconstitutional. The legislature had no right to enact laws delining what properly should bo taxed. His whole line of argument was based on this point and ho cited the fact that Judge Beomcr of Kansas had decided that such a law Mas unconstitutional when a similar case was tried before him. The commission took the case under advisement and will render a decision Friday. If the case is decided in Wib son's favor it will result in no end of litigation lit-igation in southern Colorado, as a number num-ber of cattlemen have heretofore) paid large sums of taxes under ruling of the county commissioners, similar to tho case in question. |