Show CITY mm IMPORTANT DECISION WITHIN the P S supreme court supports Sap ports judge bidd in uis decision in alie district court of the first judicial district county of utah territory of utah tha people etc vs wm daniels of the court november 27 tho court has had this case under consideration for some considerable time and from time to time I 1 have given it the best thought that I 1 have been able foaad I 1 have ransacked the authorities myself and I 1 have had the aid of counsel likewise and I 1 am now content to announce the result but I 1 am very freeo 0 confess that 1 am not satisfied with it the case is submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts which shows that the town of moroni in county includes within its boundaries as established by the legislature about acres of land and that about of that 13 is actually in the town and that all the balance is farming or wild land tho defendant whose land is sought to be taxed according to the statement of facts is about two miles and a half from the town and it is used exclusively fer farming and agricultural purposes never having been platted aiato iato town lots and in no way deriving any benefit so far as the facts show from being included in tho corporation this court sitting in the state of tennessee there would have been ao trouble and the conclusion would have been entirely satisfactory to the court at least but we are here sitting in a territory choso whoso organic act is an act of congress and there is no written constitution bv which the legislative powers are de nned or restrained I 1 find in dillon on municipal corporations po rations vol 2 second edition the statement of the law as follows where tho boundaries have been originally fixed or subsequently changed so as to include within them rural or agricultural lands which have never been platted are not needed for town lots and which receive no direct benefit from tho municipal government or expenditures questions have arisen respecting tho right to subject such lands to ordinary municipal taxation the power of the legislature to fix or enlarge the corporate boundaries is not disputed but it is tho power to require such lands to the municipal treasury that has been controvert ed in kentucky tho decisions of which have been followed fa iowa and nebraska and missouri the principle has been adopted that the courts will in such cases control aad limit the taxing power to that point or line where it ceases erato beneficially fici ally to tho proprietor in a municipal point of view the general rule is that tho right to subject property to real municipal taxation extends only to such as has been surveyed and platted into lots but the right 0 o tax may under circumstances cum stances extend to property which has never baen platted I 1 have examined thoroughly the cases relating to the subject from kentucky and from iowa nebraska and from missouri and I 1 make no doubt in the world that these cases correctly decided As a sample of them I 1 have selected the case of morford vs linger in 8 iowa at page 82 where it says where land is vacant or a cultivated farm occupied by the downar for agricultural purposes caid not required for streets or houses or other purposes of a town and solely for the purpose of increasing its revenue it 13 brought within the taxing power by an enlargement of the city limits such an act though on its face poly providing for such extension of the city limits is in reality nothing more than authority to the city to tax the land to a certain distance outside of its limits and is in effect the taking of private property without corni sensation pensa tion within the spirit aad meaning of tho constitution in such a case tho force and effect and obvious intent of tho act is to subject each lands to city taxation without the pretext of extending abo protection of tho city over them and when the power of the legislature over local regulations and government furnishes no legitimate basis for tho act tho extension of the limits of a city or town so as to include its actual enlargement as manifested by houses and population is a legitimate exercise of legislative power while an indefinite or unreasonable extension so as to embrace lands and farms at a distance from the local government Is without authority tho rity it will bo seen that by an elamin of thes cases each and every ono of them rest the decision upon that clause of the constitutions which is found in all the constitution of the several states of the american government ern ment that private property shall not be taken for public use without compensation it is differently expressed indifferent states but all result in that sense or meaning now if this court as I 1 have remarked were sitting in a state whore such a constitution existed and where it wash er forced I 1 should havo no doubt about the authority of decisions and would follow them with great pleasure but we are in a territory as I 1 said and the only constitution that binds us hore is the constitution of the united states more than that the decisions of the supreme court of the united states are to us just what tho decisions of the supreme courts of kentucky iowa and missouri are to those stales this court is absolutely bound by the decision of the supreme court of the united states and turning to the caso of kelly against pittsburg united states pago 78 a decision j which was produced by brother jovans biot I 1 bad this ox act point ruled pon the Sta abo power to deter anine what portions of her territory shall for local purposes be within of a city and subject to its government and to prescribe the rate of taxation at which such portions assessed A is not deprived ot his property without due process of law by the enforced collection of taxes merely they in c individual cases work hardships or impose burdens the facts are these tag eighty acres charming load outside of the city limits of pittsburg brought this action to restrain the city from levying and collecting taxes upon that land alleging that this perty had been taken in the city property Ero y the extension 0 its boundaries and that it was fanning property not platted for city lots not in any genso city properio and not in sense to corporate jurisdiction and that as attempt to tax it was to deprive him of his property without doubt without ander the fifth amendment of the constitution of the united states andaas and was likewise a violation of the fourteenth amendment and upon that question the supreme court was called to pass and there it held in this language that the distinct ground on which this provision of the constitution of the united states is invoked is that as the land in question is and always has been used tor larm land tor agricultural ri only subjecting it to taxation for ordinary city purposes deprives the plaintiff in error of his property without due process of law it is allege dand probably with truth that the estimate of the value of the land for taxation is greatly in excess of its value whether this bo true or not we cannot here inquire we have so often decided that we cannot ra view and correct the errors and mistakes of the state tribunals on that subject that it is only necessary to refer to those decisions without a re stata ment of the argument on which they rest bat passing from the question of the administration of the law of pennsylvania by her authorities the argument is that the matter already mentioned the law itself is in conflict with the constitution that is the constitution of the united states and after somo further discussion it says it is urged with much force that land of this character which its owner has not laid off int otowa lots but insists oa using for agricultural through which no streets ara run or used cannot be even by the legislature subjected to the taxes of a city the gas street tax and others of similar character cha the reason for this is said to be that such taxes are for the benefit of those in a city who owa property within the limits of such improvements and who use or might use them if they choose while he reaps no benefit cases are cited from the higher courts of kentucky and iowa where this principle is asserted and where these courts have hold that farm lands in a city are not subject to the ordinary city taxes now says the court it is no part of our duty w inquire into the grounds boon which those courts have so decided they are questions which arise between the citizens of those states and their own city authorities and afford no rulo for constructing the constitution of the united states and than hold after proceeding further into the case that taxation of farming property by cities is not in violation of the constitution of tho united states I 1 was cited to the case of salt lake city against reported in 2 of utah but I 1 found upon a thorough reading that this ease is not in point and if it were tho decision of tho supreme court of the united states controls after all tho court is constrained to come to the conclusion what it has sought for the past month to avoid that it is an injustice goes without saying bufa one which tho legislature of utah must correct but failing or declining the leopla will have to appeal to congress I 1 belies d that if this question was presented to the legislature it would correct the fault at any rate if the people will go to the congress of the united states I 1 doubt not that congress would correct it the judgment will have to be for the plaintiff upon the complaint mr evans judge I 1 wish to note an exception to the ruling of the court court the exception will be noted J W JUDD judge |