OCR Text |
Show PUSH FIGHT ON UTAH TAX LAW Motion Forwarded to U. S. Supreme Court in Mine Protest SALT LAKE, Dec. S The alleged unconstitutionality of the rjtal constitution, con-stitution, which Is to bo consider- I by the supreme court of the l nlte-1 Staler, will depend In part upon Its re, .-ntlon of a motion forwarded to Washington yesterday by the attorney general of Utah, Harvey H. fluff. The motion comes in the case of tho South fjfah Mln.-s & Smelters against Beaver coUnty, to recover IvOOO, approximately, paid in taxe3. This case has been taken before the supreme court of the T'nite.l ptat by C Q. Parsons and Fisher Harris, representing the mining company. The particular section In the state constitution which is attacked Is oni that was the subject of much discussion discus-sion four years ago, when It was amended by popular vote. It provldi I for the method of taxation of mining property, and among other things that the value of the mineral content of metal mining property may be fixed by some multiple or submultlple o th. net annual procff.is, the multiple or submiiltlriie being fixed by the .stilt legislature. The South Utah's dump had metallic metal-lic content which became valuable during wartime high prlcei and ws extracted by the Utah Ieasing company. com-pany. Returns of tho operation of this company were made to the state board of equalization, which, follow-lng follow-lng rtate court decisions, determined, that the dump was part of the mlno and proceeded to assess th property, which had paid little taxes for somo years, at three times net proceeds for that year. The company objected on several grounds, and took the issue before Judge 1'agc Morris, sitting for Judce Tillman D. Johnson In the federal fed-eral district court. The facts In the case were agreed on. practically, ani tho legal arguments of tho mining company were overruled by Judgu Morris, who decided in favor of I$a-vcr I$a-vcr county. That county vms represented rep-resented at tho trial by Mr. Hilton of tho attorney general's office. Mr. Par3ons appealed, taking the rajie direct lo the supremo court of the United States, instead of to the circuit court of appeals on Us, constitutional con-stitutional question. The county, through the attorney general's office. Is presenting the motion to dismiss the writ of error and to affirm the Judgment of Judge Morris, on purely technical grounds, covering procedural pro-cedural questions arising at the trial, and suhsequcntly in connection with tho entering of Judge Morris' decision. de-cision. This motion will be brought on for hearing January S next, under supreme court rules, at which time briefs will be submitted. oo i |