State ex rel. Richards v. Armstrong

• Citation: 17 Utah 166,53 P. 981
• Decision Date: 01 June 1898
• Docket Number: 952
• Court: Supreme Court of Utah
• Parties: THE STATE EX. REL. RICHARDS v. FRANCIS ARMSTRONG ET AL., COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

53 P. 981

17 Utah 166

THE STATE EX. REL. RICHARDS v. FRANCIS ARMSTRONG ET AL., COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

No. 952

Supreme Court of Utah

June 1, 1898

Proceedings by the state, on the relation of Morgan Richards Jr., state auditor, against Francis Armstrong and others county board of equalization of Salt Lake county, for a writ of prohibition.

Writ allowed.

A. C Bishop, Attorney General, for plaintiff:

Where a state constitution provides a general class of property which may be exempted such as charities, property devoted to educational and ele-emosynary purposes, etc., the legislature can make no exemptions outside of such specified classes. Chespeake, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 19 W.Va. 408; Hogg v. Mackey (Ore. 1893), 31 P. 779; Croisan v. Hogg (Ore. 1893), 31 P. 782.

And a provision that all property shall be taxed precludes exemptions by the Legislature. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Gaines, 3 Lea Ch. 604; Ellis v. Louisville R. Co., 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 530; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Gaines, 97 U.S. 697; State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 75 Mo. 208; New Orleans v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 28 La. An. 756: Chattanooga v. Nash, etc., R. Co., 7 Lea (Tenn.), 561.

Taxes are charges imposed by the authority of the legislature upon property subject to its jurisdiction, but such authority must always be exercised with due regard to any limitation imposed by the Constitution. People v. McCreary, 34 Cal. 432; People v. Eddy, 43 Cal. 331; Wilson v. Supervisors of Sutter Co., 47 Cal. 91.

The legislature has no power to exempt or release a person or community of persons from their proportionate share of these burthens." Hunsaker v. Wright, 30 Ill. 146-148. See also Trustees v. McConnell, 12 Ill. 138; O'Kane v. Street, 25 Ill. 458; Madison County v. People, 58 Ill. 456; Dunham v. Chicago, 55 Ill. 357; People v. Soldiers' Home, 95 Ill. 561.

Under the constitutional provision of Iowa, which provides that "the property of all corporations for pecuniary profit now existing or hereafter created shall be subject to taxes the same as that of individuals" it was held to preclude exemptions of corporate property from taxation and consequently would require the court in any doubtful case to construe the revenue law as not intending such exemption. Iowa Homestead Co. v. Webster Co., 21 Iowa 221; Dubuque, etc., R. Co. v. Webster Co., 21 Iowa 235. See, also, New Orleans v. Insurance Co., 28 La. An. 756; New Orleans v. St. Charles, etc., 28 La. An. 498; New Orleans v. Sugar Shed, 35 La. An. 548.

To the same effect and sustaining the same principle, see, Brewer Brick Co, v. Brewer, 62 Me. 62; Farnsworth v. Lisbon, 62 Me. 451; Dyer v. Farmington, 70 Me. 515; State v. U. S. and Canada Express Co., 60 N.H. 219.

The Constitution of Wisconsin provides that "the rule of taxation shall be uniform." Under this provision the supreme court of that state has said that it is necessary that all kinds of property not absolutely exempt shall be taxed alike by the same standard of valuation equally with other taxable property. Gillman v. Sheboygan, 2 Black 610. See also Kittle v. Shervin, 11 Neb. 65; Warren v. Havana, 60 Georgia, 93.

Waldemar Van Cott, Ray Van Cott and Graham F. Putnam, for defendants.

BARTCH, J. ZANE, C. J., and MINER, J., concur.

OPINION

BARTCH, J.:

This is an original proceeding in this court for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the defendants, who constitute the board of equalization of Salt Lake county, from remitting or abating the taxes of insane, idiotic, infirm, or indigent persons, under section 2579, Rev. St. Utah, in which it is provided, "The board may remit or abate the taxes of any insane, idiotic, infirm, or indigent person to an amount not exceeding ten dollars for the current year." The petitioner insists that the statute is unconstitutional and void, and that the legislature had no power, under the constitution, to exempt any property from the burdens of taxation, except such as is expressly exempted by virtue of that instrument, and maintains that the remitting or abating of a tax is virtually an exemption. Counsel for the defendants concede that, if an abatement of the taxes is in effect the same as an exemption thereof, then the board of equalization has no authority to abate such taxes. The question, therefore, is whether an abatement of taxes on taxable property which is owned by an insane, idiotic, infirm, or indigent person is prohibited by the constitution, as being in effect an exemption of property from taxation which is not included within the list of exemptions contained in the fundamental law.

In Const. art. 13, § 2, it is provided, "All property in the state not exempt under the laws of the United States, or under this constitution, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as provided by law." This provision is clear and explicit, and, under its command, no property within this state, except such as is exempt by virtue of the laws of the United States, or of the constitution of this state, can escape the burden of taxation. Id. § 3, reads as follows: "The legislature shall provide by law a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation on all property in the state according to its value in money, and shall prescribe by general law such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property; so that every person and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her, or its property: Provided, that a deduction of debits from credits may be authorized: Provided, further, that the property of the United States, of the state, counties, cities, towns, school districts, municipal corporations, and public libraries, lots with the buildings thereon used exclusively for either religious worship or charitable purposes, and places of burial not held or used for private or corporate benefits shall be exempt from taxation. Ditches, canals, and flumes owned and used by individuals or corporations for irrigating lands owned by such individuals or corporations, or the individual members thereof, shall not be separately taxed so long as they shall be owned and used exclusively for such purpose." In construing this section, this court, in Judge v. Spencer, 15 Utah 242, 48 P. 1097, said: "This provision made it incumbent upon the legislature to provide a uniform system by which every species of property within the state, not exempt by the organic law, should equally and ratably bear its due proportion of the public burden, and the legislature had no power to exempt property not exempt under the constitution. The intention manifest from the several provisions of that instrument respecting taxation and revenue is not only that previous territorial legislation, as to such exemptions, should be repealed, but also that no power should exist in the state government to grant exemptions other than those mentioned in the constitution." It will be observed that the classes of property which shall be exempt from taxation are specifically mentioned, but neither one of those classes, by any principle of interpretation, can be made to include the property of either an insane, idiotic, infirm, or indigent person. It is manifest, therefore, that the property of none of these classes of persons is exempt under the provisions of the constitution, and exemptions cannot be enlarged by interpretation. "The presumption is that all exemptions intended to be granted were granted in express terms. In such cases the rule of strict construction applies, and, in order to relieve any species of property from its due and just proportion of the budens of the government, the language relied on as creating the exemption should be so clear as not to admit of reasonable controversy about its meaning, for all doubts must be resolved against the exemption." Judge v. Spencer, supra.

But cou...