| OCR Text |
Show THE SU100L TA ltMULSiL. KuTttlTllsTANMNCIthat Judgo Anderson An-derson prrptrod a somewhat tUborato ojlnlontojustlfytho Injustice which, under his decision, would have been lullctod upon a great mauy taxiiayers In this i lly, the persons aggrieved In the several dlitrlcts, whojolmxl la (lie organised movements which wore made to rotht tho collection of oj pres. slve taxes, were not converted by Its reatoulug. Tho result obtained In tho Territorial dupreme Court last Hitur-day, Hitur-day, In tha shape of a reversal of Judgo An Ierson's decision, amply repays the effort and expuiise of taking the appeal rheoplnlon was rendered by Judge llltikburn, In the caw appealed by tbotaipipersot the oil eleventh district, dis-trict, but It was made to cover the can, of the seventh and fifteenth districts. Although eai.li of the threo Involved questions of hw and fact peculiar to Ibwif, they all embraced the twoprlu ciphsiipon whltli the decision turns, namely, the Injiutlce of extetUliig tlu tax on tho roll of ISM, on which "boom" valuations aj paired, Instead of tho roll of 18s9, which tho taxjyert had In mln I whon they voted tho tai, an 1 tbe further Injuitlce of compelling one district to psy Into n oouinun fiin I a much larger sum, In proportion to Ibe value of Us property, than acothcr, rhoestlmatoof the sum to boralse'l was made lu 1S89, Un the valuations of that year, and tho levy uas ordered In that year, and It Is obvious that the Intention of the taxpayers was to place n burden unn themsehea cormiiond-lug cormiiond-lug to the needs and valuations of that year, lleuce the decision aiys: "They wanted $.-,50)0) ant they In-ten In-ten Ind to levy that amount, and they rotat a levy of one per cent boranat compute) on the aaaesanient roll of laxnt that would raise IlieJunounlnooded.Tbsy hs-l not In mind the assessment roll of lMs). "If I hat Intention ran bo carried ont by a reasonable construction of tbe Btaltilo authorising the Isry, without doing do-ing violence to Its wortllnf, we think It ought to be done." This languago Hates, tbe common sense equities of the case, anl as It Is the function of uiulty to so land the law thatjuatlce ln-ltad of Its opposite, will be incited out, the position taken by the court, In the above quotation, and In lu filial conclualon, it justifiable under tbo rulca of equity practice. Hupporathat,at the meeting of tax-payera tax-payera at which the levy was ordered, a resolution had been adopted directing direct-ing that the levy be mado on the valuations valu-ations of 183, would such action have been Invalid? The law gave to the tatiiyert of a school district the right to fix the extent of their own burdens, to designate, the amount they desired and Intended to devote to school purposes; pur-poses; and It would have been nothing more than the exercise of this right, had audi a resolution been adortca. True, U1I1 was not dono In form, but It was In essence. Tho turn to be raised waa stated, and that turn meant a given rcentage of the valuations of 1999, and there Is no mora doubt as to the rooaulngof the taxpayers than would have existed had they jnr-cd tucli a resolution. It dors not follow from thlt decision, that the wheels of the public school system must be stopped fur a year, or that a year mutt be "sklpisxl" without a tax levy. Ulvluglo tho decision lit most rigid application, It w III merely require a tax to be tvi fAe tawifwas of tlie year lu which It Is levied, but the collection may be ma le, at heretofore, hereto-fore, In the succeeding year " Under the school law at It now ttatida tucli a case as those effected by this decision could arise only when the taxpayers of a district decldo to ratio funds to "purchase a school site or lm-I lm-I rove the same, or to purchase, build, rent, repair or furnish school houses." In future, taxee so ordered mutt be collected on tbe valuation! of the year In which the levy was made, Inttc-ad of those of the succeeding year. This Is tho only change from that which has prevailed heretofore, and It Isdlfllcult to see how It can work Injustice to auy one, or any Injury to tho schools. If wo considered It truo that thlt decision deprived the public pub-lic schools of revenue to which they were entitled, or which tho taxpayers had lulended should be given them, we would olject to It with an emphasis protioilloned to the de. grco lu which It did so. From the above It doit not follow that we endoree tho reasoning of the court, by which It It mado to appear that thelrglslatuie may have Intended that special taxee should be extended on tbe roll of the year in which they were levied. We do think, however, hat tlie clrcumitancefl connected with theso case were such as to euthorlzo a court of equity to order that the collection collec-tion be ma Jo on thu valuations of 1859 Instead ofl8W,ud, like Juitlre Miner, our views are In accord with tho result, without nccoawrlly sustaining tho in-tire in-tire process of reasoning by which It wat reached. Inuur lew, Uin conclusion of the court hat sufficient support on the tlngleground that the tax ought not to have been collected because It was not equal lu burdens and benefits, and was therefore violative of the fundamental rule upon which the validity of all lax laws depends. |
