Board of Com'rs of Creek County v. Alexander

• Decision Date: 11 July 1916
• Docket Number: 7873.
• Citation: 159 P. 311,58 Okla. 128
• Parties: BOARD OF COM'RS OF CREEK COUNTY ET AL. v. ALEXANDER, STATE TREASURER.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

159 P. 311

58 Okla. 128

BOARD OF COM'RS OF CREEK COUNTY ET AL. v. ALEXANDER, STATE TREASURER.

No. 7873.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

July 11, 1916

Syllabus by the Court.

It is a cardinal rule in the construction of statutes that the intention of the Legislature, when ascertained, must govern and that to ascertain the intent all the various provisions of legislative enactments upon the particular subject should be construed together and given effect as a whole.

When the language of a statute is dubious, the court, in construing it, will consider the reason and intent of the law to discover its scope and true meaning.

Subsequent legislative enactments may be considered as an aid in the interpretation of prior legislation upon the same subject.

When it is apparent that a strict interpretation of a particular statute, construed alone, would defeat the intention of the Legislature as shown by other legislative enactments, which relate to the same subject, and which have been enacted in pursuance of, and according to a general purpose in accomplishing a particular result, such construction should not be adopted.

A joint resolution, duly passed by both branches of the Legislature though not signed by the Governor, and thereby by section 11 art. 6, of the Constitution, not having the force of a law and which resolution was declaratory of the purpose and intent of a former act of the same Legislature, passed at a prior session, may be considered by the court as an aid in construing and giving effect to said former act.

Under section 4, subd. "a," art. 2, of the act of March 11, 1915 (Sess. Laws 1915, pp. 184, 185), providing for a direct and indirect system of taxation, construed in connection with both prior and subsequent legislation, in reference to the distribution of the gross production tax upon petroleum or other mineral oil or natural gas, and the joint resolution of the Legislature declaratory of its intent in the passage of said act, one-half of the tax collected under the provisions of said statute should be, by the state treasurer, distributed to the county treasurer of the county from whence the tax was collected, to be apportioned among the school districts of such county in aid of the common schools of said county, upon a per capita basis, as are other common school funds.

Original application for mandamus by the Board of County Commissioners of Creek County and another against W. L. Alexander, State Treasurer. Writ granted.

McDougal, Lytle & Allen and Pryor & Rockwood, all of Sapulpa, for plaintiffs.

S. P. Freeling, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Clarence Davis, of Sapulpa, for school district number 18, Creek County.

Fred P. Branson, Co. Atty., and Glenn Alcorn and Francis Stewart, Asst. Co. Attys., all of Muskogee, amici curiæ.

SHARP J.

The present action involves primarily a construction of section 4, subd. "a," art. 2, of the act of March 11, 1915, levying and providing for the distribution of a gross production tax on petroleum or other mineral oil, and of natural gas. The petition charges that since the passage of said act, and up to and including September 30, 1915, the state auditor has collected from the different counties of the state paying a gross production tax large sums of money, a very considerable portion of which is now held in the depositary of the treasurer of the state; that unless otherwise commanded by the mandate of this court, said officer will distribute and apportion the tax among all the counties from which any part or portion thereof was collected, in proportion to the school enumeration of such counties, whereas said state treasurer should pay over to the county treasurer of Creek county one-half of the taxes paid the state auditor upon oil and gas produced in Creek county. The petition charges that up to September 30, 1915, the state auditor had collected from the different counties producing oil and gas and minerals upon which a gross production tax was collectible the respective sums set forth therein, and which petition also gives the school enumeration of said counties for the year 1915, said taxes and school enumeration being as follows:

-------------------------------------------- County. Tax Paid. School Enumeration. -------------------------------------------- Creek $232,784.40 10,694 Tulsa 17,998.16 14,430 Washington 10,106.81 5,962 Nowata 7,447.86 4,589 Muskogee 2,389.89 18,593 Okmulgee 7,849.15 10,120 Okfuskee 19.42 8,397 Payne 289.37 9,092 Rogers 1,779.50 6,995 Wagoner 164.39 7,565 Carter 4,946.59 10,298 Kay 1,531.27 7,466 Kiowa 6.41 7,977 Marshall 16.14 5,669 Osage 13,202.19 7,085 Pawnee 4,118.99 5,459 Stephens 8.27 8,371 Jefferson 58.65 6,007 Ottawa 2,322.93 5,928 Craig 25.52 6,275 Pushmataha 24.54 4,909 Le Flore 23.98 12,988 Pontotoc 19.92 9,980 Lincoln 2.41 11,948 -------------------------------------------

On the part of plaintiffs, as already indicated, it is claimed that one-half of the gross production tax paid on oil and gas produced in Creek county should by the state treasurer be paid to the county treasurer of Creek county, to be distributed in aid of the common schools of said county, upon a per capita basis as are other common school funds. Counsel for Muskogee county, who have been given permission to file a brief herein, in effect say that the gross production tax should be divided among the several counties contributing thereto, in proportion to the school enumeration of such counties. As between the contending forces, the Attorney General, who has filed a brief on the part of the defendant state treasurer, disclaims any purpose of taking part in the controversy. However, it is urged by the state's legal representative that, construing section 4, so as to apportion one-half of the tax among the different counties from which the tax is collected, in proportion to the school enumeration of such counties, as contended for by counsel appearing amici curiæ, said section cannot be sustained; hence the tax must be distributed under section 4b of the act, which provides that in case section 4 shall, for any reason, become ineffective, then at once shall the proceeds of all gross production tax collected under the provisions of the act be paid into the general revenue fund of the state, and applied to the current expenses of the state government; any unexpended balance at the end of each fiscal year to be credited to the common school fund of the state, to be distributed as are other common school funds. The wide divergence of views, the importance of the question not only to Creek county, but to all other counties of the state, and a proper understanding and construction of section 4 and related sections of the act of 1915, make proper a reference to the history of the several acts of the Legislature, levying a gross production or mining production tax on asphalt or ores bearing zinc, jack, gold, silver, copper, or petroleum or other mineral oil, or of natural gas.

The first act providing for such tax passed and approved May 26, 1908 (Sess. Laws 1907-08, c. 71, pp. 640-645), as amended by the act of March 27, 1909 (Sess. Laws 1909, c. 38, art. 2, pp. 624-626), provided that all funds collected thereby should be paid into the state treasury and credited to the general revenue fund of the state, for the payment of the expenses of the state government. The act of March 10, 1910 (Sess. Laws 1910, c. 44, pp. 66-70), provided for the levy and collection of a gross revenue tax, and directed that all taxes levied and collected pursuant thereto should be paid into the state treasury and applied to the payment of the ordinary expenses of the state government. Section 4, subd. "a," art. 2, of the act of March 11, 1915 (Sess. Laws 1915, c. 107, pp. 184-185), provides that all gross production revenues collected under the provisions of said act should be paid into the state treasury, to be distributed as follows: (1) One-half to be credited to the general revenue fund of the state, and applied to the current expenses of the state government (and any unexpended balance at the close of each fiscal year shall be credited to the common school fund of the state, for distribution as are other common school funds); (2) the remaining one-half shall be by the state treasurer distributed to the county treasurer of the counties from whence the same was collected, in proportion to the school enumeration of such counties, and same shall be distributed in aid of the common schools of such counties upon a per capita basis as are other common school funds. Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, subd. "a," art. 2, of said latter act were amended by an act of the Legislature passed at the extraordinary session of the Fifth Legislature and approved February 14, 1916 (Sess. Laws 1916, c. 39, pp. 102-110), whereby, among other changes, the tax on petroleum or other crude or mineral oil, or natural gas (less the royalty interest payable by the owner thereof), was raised to a sum equal to 3 per centum of the gross value of the production, and which tax, it was provided, should be distributed as follows: Two-thirds to be paid to the state treasurer by the state auditor, to be credited to the general revenue fund of the state and applied to the current expenses of the state government; the remaining one-third to be paid to the county treasurer of the county from whence the oil or gas and other mineral was produced; one-half of the amount so paid to the county treasurer to be credited to the common school fund of the county in proportion to the school population of such county; the remaining one-half, so paid to the county treasurer, to be credited to a fund of such county known as the road and bridge fund.

The act of May 26, 1908, the amendatory act of March...