Show JTlJT I I 1lI I E Ill L INVALID t C ft clslon In Mailer of Abating Supreme Taxes ot t mwno and Indigent Persons COUNTY BOARDS NO AUTHORITY TO REMIT Iohlhltlo < IT S nil of UI ItILate11 u n th 110 Jury Lw UUDIY murract cut can Trial court delivered nn Ini I The Supreme rjrt nt opinion today In the case at State of Utah tx rel I Morgan the ul < tnnl Jr otate nudltor VIE Francis rnutrons ct nl the county heard of overruling the demurrer Equalization to tile petition for a writ of prohibition and ordering that a writ Issue n > stroll ring nbnoutoly ftirthur proccoj res In tile attempt of tile count beard to nmlt or abate the taxes of wane Idiotic 1 Infirm or InJIsent Irons Ir-ons under section 257P of tile llevlscd ft itutca wlileh la laid to Le null and iolJ The proceeding WAR comment el ume time ago by State Auditor lllch media who petitioned for a writ of pro hlbltion to prohibit the county board eairallzitlon from remlltliiB or abut hill the tixt referred to to an amount not exceeding 110 for tho current jtur The position taken by Auditor Illch unconstitutional nrls was that the statute was stitutional and that tlio Uglililura under the Coiwtl hid nol tho power tutlon to exempt property from taxa iiun except such ns Is I cxfrtsely ex > miitcd t > virtu of the Cinstltu lion and thit the remirtlnn or elating exemption alt A virtually an Defindanita conceded that If the nhltement of n tx was In effect them the-m no on exemllIon ilia board bill no authority to abate The qoollnll for tile court to pas Whthor nn abatement on Was uln taxable prolllrl which In I Owned hon h-on Inn inllrm Hollo I or Indigent pirson Is prtlilbltefl by the mate Con person Htlitutlon as b I ing an exemption ol p which Is I not l proper y from > fixation included it within the lint of exemptions I I law contained In tile run amen a After reviewing the Hw and the Constitution tin court find that tho 1 statute Is In dlrt violation of tin Constitution and tlnTiMrc old The court further llnch that a similar question r I ques-tion was I before OIL supreme I mutt of California and uiuitnl In 47 Cal 01 Concluding the court YIn Y-In arrIvIng ut the conclusion thit the provlslin of the statute In control > rs > H null and ull l we were not unmindful un-mindful of the fact that the question whettier an enactment of the leIla ture Is I raid because nf Its repugnancy to the Constitution Is I iilnajs one of much delicacy and In 1 a doubtful i ase should selct > m It over 1 eu derided In the Rfllrammo When however the mind H I ontlnced of the unconstitutionally unconstitu-tionally of the law I the tint > which I dvolvo upon Iho court to declare It I so Is I hnperoll en where as In Ihl case file Itle 11 pplatirs be In enii rlo V tr I Evinance with I jus rl lee till humanity I Thai the law Itself Would be hnIInll con he or no Arai I I In hits ee boral1 Itv a Ilerl rind operation would be to I evempt Property ogaln the mando I It ill a rundnmnlal law We are or the olllIlon that the de raft rrer 10 Ihe Iwtlllon must he overFill I over-Fill ell And that II Til Of Ihlhillon 011 I it sue rostra I ning aboluth file I ther proceed Ing Under the clawe at the statute herein declared void I JtHllcr Iltrtch delivered the opinion I which Is concurred In by Chief Justice Jus-tice Zane and l Justice Miner |