| Show IP a J if DE D E ii lUHREH OYEHHULEI 1 Judge Norrcll Renders n Decision in the Summit Sum-mit County Sheep License Case I viI vi i I II THE STATUTE IS HELD TO BE VALID i 0 Ii I 4 Ill i 1 ir1 i 0 Coot ftjTb II III nVAAIOvovl I Ilan or r 111111livellool PI1111n 1 1 I 11111 tie DIJ 1 1 T 1J J 1 Judge Norrell t gave his decision to eq Ht tiny In the case of John L Hoyden pi ii 1 I runts clerk of Summit eounl > vs I I i 1 t LosI I Sanford Oilstnvson overruling the lei le-i jl i I I I mutter This win n case said 1 the i I 1 1 I cuurt wherein the plaintiff sued lei le I cover two as license tax for grazing I I I i herdlnic And pimluilng two thousand i I ml I I j thee ITo I In Summit county t during 1KQ7 11 I-To the complaint tho defendant Interposed Inter-posed n general demurrer and argued I that section C of article 1 of the Can k I I I I I Hltutlon only authorizes the Leglsln 1 I ture lu mflowr the corporate ulhorl I tles of said county to levy a gcnetal I I I I I I taxaml that lection 12 uf article Only j authorizes the legislature to Impose j opeclac f I the specific furs therein enumerated I for State purposes and does not extends I ex-tends Us authority to provide tho 7 J counties with the power to I ntta And 11 1 I collect ouch eclllc o Ppeelfle taxes II I I Tht are PeevirAl locations says I I I the court to IK I considered I 11 1 H I 4 flrrtDId the Legislature have the 4 114 power under the Constitution to nu i 1 horlze the Counties to Dispense n scenpo J 1 r tax upon all and every kind of business I I I busi-ness not prohibited by law and transacted 1 trans-acted and carried on In such counties 11 k I i nnd to fix the rale of license tax upon hi p i the same and to provide for the coil i I 1I I I 1 lection thereof Ly suit or otherwise I i I i HccondIs the raising grazing I herd t I I lag or pasturing of sheep In I any county 1 I NI coun-ty uch n business ns is I contemplated I I > y ubdIvIslon 26 of Pectlon 1 ot the 3 nrf Slon I I I county government a ictT It t ThirdI uh a tax II tax upon tho fj 1 property beepor Is I It a tax upon the I business of razing herding and 11 I 11f oj pasturing I sheep ns alleged In the complaint I I t FourthIs It double taxation f I It will not be iuestloncd that the I ill Legislature has full power to piovlde N fl n license tax for Htato uroses but R 11 I the questio arises upon Its Authority f i I authorize I and empowpr the countie I I 11 to Impose much a lax The Legislature I I f hn all I Power to oil Ct any law unlomx I II I f I t I I Inhlbltd hy tho trm or Ih ConlI 3 till Ion because the members In thcll it 1 Ilictlvo capacity tire the rprenlo < IIVs ot the people III I hom nil power I I I Js Inherent lIlt J h I Tho rule of the courts In cases Ilk 1 this has been to i Pessitain Into right of I the Legislature lro enact n statute and to solv e every reasonable doubt In 1411 1 favor of the legislative action 11 And I revcr declare n statute vol I unless the f nullity dt Invalidity of the act arce laced In their Judgment biyc nJ it I i rcaoonnLlo doubt 1 i f j I vs Camp Nve are Sing I 411I Ilac the 610 raise as of develding State lill 11 t against the validity uh Ain act hut 0 f l Upon n minute examination of that case 1 h I i the quiration Ultra ulri Itunil to lie Ill I I gether different films that upon which PilIll i Ill thlis caurt Icr I upon to PAPA Article I I I 12 Svc 4 of the Atuntann constitution tl I says The legislative omhIS hall I J I f > not Ivy taxes ulJOn the Inhabitants or i Property lei any County city or town tt i i it trounIrlpill corpruthill far count town ur muticipal purlionies but It rally 11 I hy I law vcut In the orlurot authorities thereof the Powers III untiesn and ullct I f tale for suoh purpospa81 In tilt Alan I t Atilt Ana Ilia I I legislature I by law I levied upon the drout Camp Sing a II fi i 1i I > j1 I Cn tax hlch Under the constitution 1i I Itclearly bail power 10 duo but It went 11 11 1 farther And lrold1 tht 70 pr cent I I of the license tax should lie retainvol i V > > I the mostly And the I question i there was by 1 hthr Auto It Action wne nol levying a I Vf tax upon the Inhabitants or pruprt I iffl < < Of It County for county purposes con ail r F trary ti I tali Art 22 Svc 4 of the con Min olllutlon stairl thn supreme court of Montana < hold that notwithstanding j IJI section ot the constitution the 1m It I il 4 post it of such llcelle tax Is I not to 11 I I stricted to the single PUlpUO ot rallllg 1 Itl I revenue for state puroe t 1 t It frolly tie argued under this decision 1 t ban In order to Ovade tile t above can I I il atitutt onal inhibition the legislature i I I in gill IVY n license upon th Inhuhll ants or property of a county letaln Ing for the stale one pi r i nt only nnd providing that OS per nnl should go into lh to county tr > ni v Hut however how-ever Umt I might he I the queetlon here Is I altogether a different one Here the Ills berIn H I Ilns the Klsliituro t Under Its onstllullonnl doillfi th < IvOwer I to provideb hy law In I tho lmK > sltloli of a lax by the county authorities based upon Income mcuimtlon 11 rentes franchises I I morttrngts If It be held that the Montana legislature legis-lature under the section of the eon stltutloll above cited cnn Impose a II cno tax upon the inhabitants or prop erty f n county for county pur posen with much greater itrrnrth oj Poisoning t can It be hi Id that tho legislature I legis-lature I may hy law authorize the authorities au-thorities of i county to imnow Teach nIx n-Ix upon thmlvtB ve ov It under the preibIltin of our Con ttltutton denying to the Legislature the power to Impose taxes for county purposes pur-poses upon the i People or property I of the county It ran still Impos a license lax nnd turn the same Into the county treasury It would appear that under Its constitutional authority to provide a tax I bafd upon occupation and i license And to vest In the corporate authorities of the counties the power to nsiess nnd collect taxes for nil purposes pur-poses of such corporation the authority also exists to nuttioilre I by law the counties tu Dopom uh tax 4 it 1 he Legislature li I the only authority that cnn vest such power In tile car pornte nuthorltl > mVioenuthriti10 To Provide si tech Inxts for IIhnt And whom Tor regulation only or revenue only or for both for the state alone or for the counties also To provlle n tax means the povver to put It to all uses for which taxes lire used unless Iho terms of the Constitution restrict ouch line to 1 see nothing therefore In section 11 art 13 which even remotely tends to disarm the Legislature of such nut badly nu-t And under section E of the same article It could by law I vest In the counties coun-ties the lower to niseis and collect uh t Ants a I I The evident Intention of the board of commissioners of summit county from the tcims and words of the ordinance ordi-nance was to lay n license tax upon the business of raising grazing herding or pasturIng hp anti If they have failed 10 do that the contention of defendant de-fendant Is I Cal met If ns contended by defendant they base Imposed the tax upon the property at a stated figure rhnid It will be void The ordinance provides that the business busi-ness shall be divided Into classes and the a rest class shall Inclujt those owning own-ing or having In their possession and under their control 5 000 or more sheep and must pay 250 IXT nnniv for the Hint cotx sheep and tot every nddi l llonal 1000 sheep the sum of 50i A tax of 2iO on 6000 sheep would be nt the rate of live cents per head hut as the class docs nol embrace th C000 alone but Includes nil sheep over MOO and up to C000 which a person I company or corporation may own or control the tax would nolI be five Points pOt houd hut would lie l 250 un 5050 or GtOO or GrOO or any other number bet be-t ween 5000 and 0000 And so with the second class the tax would be two hundred dollar upon 4000 sheep but It would also be two hundred dollars upon any number above 4 000 nnd un der r 000 nnd would not therefore be live e ants per hend The tax has been proportioned to the class as Is I always done uiKjn every other kind of business In Imposing this kind of lax for It 1 woud e Mloah IInrnl Mt tn onu unjust tr in Pcl it man fthe seventh class with less I than one thousand sheep to pay tho same tax an n man with nO thousand sheep I conclude therefore that the ordinance does not tax the property at any rate per head nor ns propertj but lays the tax upon the business of raising grazing herding or pasturing sheep and Is I therefore valid and so long as it reaches every class of the same business alike It li I not Unequal un-equal nor discriminating Nor Is I It double taxation The Constitution of Utah being si 1 lent upon the question of double taxation taxa-tion tho Legislature would have the power to Impose double taxation but In thin case the Imposition 1 of the I tax In qllllun wOlh nut he double taxa thin ou It tile Conslltulln forbade double taxation It 11 I true as stated by rounlln Ilia argument that the power to tax Includes the power to destroy but whatever may be the courts views as to the jmllci of such a law or w hat over doubts this court me have as to such l expediency can he no weight upon this legal proposition The law mint be construed as It I In and not In Accordance vvlth any ones doubts Olt to Its exi edlency III hold therefore that there has ln 110 con I raventlon or tiny contI tutlonal provision that the statute Is I vatic and the County ordinance drawn In Accordance thrclIh Is I also valid The dmurrr lost 100 overei SInv joutpedd Charles McKee 0 tnvar old tiny viam before Judge Nurr1I this after noon on the charge of truancy und general Incorrigibility The evidence uf Oeorge McICny principal of the owell school Truant Olllce Minor Anti the buys mother went 10 how that Charles ca toil nothing for school Awl was nddlcld 10 the Ue uf tobacco Upon prmllng to do better In the future the Court suspended sentence during good behavior SPorrs Conert Nistce The Supreme court hard Arguments today In the cam of Spencer Clavvsnn vn Cleo T Wallace Proof the Jlocky Mountain HII Telephone company New Tr n1 Joon And Trust company YO Ioh C Ktephe et al Th came Vol Get Wnllae And the Rocky Coss eu Bunk v M M Oravem wax submitted on briefs Tno cases Continued will be considered viz I Charles C Clausen and J W Sawyer 1114ti C I ort Ordervi Samuel Mclntyre vs Mammoth Itln IIIK company trial of muse continued by Consent trials Nntlonal Dank vs Western Innuruotnrlnl Company ot All dils mle Am to Itn ont B I p VAomlruff Anti Judgment for plaintiff render l no Against O V 1armalee for 11 120981 Ioh 0111101 0001 > iiyvsDaMdKeltli Pit all trial ut Cause continued until Saturday 1 air AflIgPil InitiolI The came ot ldnnl Johnson guar lion ad llttm of Margaret Jolmsrn a minor child against the Rail Lulu Itapld Transit company li I being trie before a Jury 111 Julgo Chrry vourt thl nrroon Plnlnlllt Pues 10 recover 299 as claim ages for Personal injuries lu Mrnnrt Juhnon Tile omplnlnt I ealllecPs that this little I gill 1 oil the lit of Hi1 tember 189 was n pngr on the delovidant Compot n3v car hen the Motorman starttA the Car throw lag the child underneath Iho I hI of the car select Injuring Its tnltrho TIe runs was tried Jtore justice of the 1enre Morrla Iolllmr who found for the plaintiff In the Um or 215 and 1 I Costs from whlhth nlwt railway tOml1n npp uh 1l1 I 1 pliours few ovAntiff mill Mnernvy Hittite Hand rr defendant I I IArr t 1 Ih No fW A ulr r tip I lIu I ing tnh nve gilithwri I Ito mii o juror tits I ittd lit f Judge Nurn ourt to stay 1001 rrturnahle n Iurdn next oseph kv I I I tPlIct ItRyes A i r Utemls l LCvi r I W lllrhnrds Xlljs C Whlliher Joseph 13 W IMftUcy John II Ilallrj r A Virtue Albert Ill tire Jiorre L Bottle W N Hague Ail sued FPrtrhrr Neal I Men I I Me-n Mlrhon MiAllllan N lodfrev I Ielnharil S q Ilimmin JoI K Hells H 11 U i 1 hut IIIIT Uanl1 Hnarr tlerl rl I Imilftr U W Senior A r Docmu Joseph Far I oil and A n Ucrge I Tkr Void Adf It The came of II A llrlgirs toga Apt W II HlI1l1h i was tiled 1 < before Jes Igo Cherry life yesterday Afternoon und taken Unthr odvlmIIL IIHggs ud to recover SSOO 01 it prosellstAry lint recurcd by n mortgage on certain visit I entatt pioptrty In thin city hmlths John Is r that J 11 Ilmhi Induced him 10 sign n note nn it n mot Ingo In blank mil that relief later II1K1 It In I describing property that ho Smith nave r ownd Dfndllllt furl her III 1gen that nache marked the mortgage its reeorlol lhn II vanes not unit thug tiered the name of the county iccordir Cot Illllnc Judee Norrell nljornl court Ihr nft < rnoon until I Mnrlny Ills honest rocs to Coalvllle In the rimming Judge lilies has Worn the Ajdx min Inlf capo nrlrr Advisement unit 111I 1 probably render n decision cannot I Over Grgo lineman won arralanoll bef re JuJif Norrell today on two Inform Users charging him with burrlary fix Pleaded not guilty In both Instances The Jury In the damage suit of Jon II flay against the Icnnsylvar mlllng Company crime Into Court shortly before li clock yesterday after noon finding for the plaintiff In the sum of Sm nay sued to recover 510 000 for alleged personal Injuries I |
