State ex rel. Umatilla County v. Hawks
| Decision Date | 13 February 1924 |
| Citation | 222 P. 1071,110 Or. 497 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. UMATILLA COUNTY ET AL. v. HAWKS, COUNTY ASSESSOR OF UMATILLA COUNTY. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc.
Original proceeding in mandamus by the State of Oregon on the relation of Umatilla County, a municipal corporation, and others against R. O. Hawks, County Assessor of Umatilla County. Writ granted.
C. Z. Randall, of Pendleton (R. I. Keator, Dist Atty., of Pendleton, on the brief), for petitioners.
Jas. A Fee, Jr., of Pendleton (Fee & Fee, of Pendleton, on the brief), for respondent.
John S. Coke, U.S. Atty., of Portland, H. L. Holgate, Dist. Counsel, of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, James B. Kerr, of Portland, D. V. Kuykendall, of Klamath Falls, J. N. Helgerson, Dist. Atty., of Dallas, Botts & Winslow, of Tillamook, and J. H. Carnahan and Fred D. Fletcher, both of Klamath Falls, amici curiæ.
This is a proceeding in mandamus, instituted originally in this court by Umatilla county, acting by and through its county court to compel the assessor of that county to enter and apportion upon the assessment rolls of Umatilla county the sum of $66,976.81 for market road purposes, in compliance with the order of the county court levying a tax in the above-mentioned sum for the aforesaid purpose, and directing the county assessor to extend the tax so levied upon the tax rolls of Umatilla county, as by law required. The alternative writ of mandamus and the return thereto disclose the facts hereinafter stated.
In 1923 the state highway commission, by its annual apportionment of the state market road appropriation, created, established, and produced under the provisions of chapter 431, Laws 1919, apportioned to Umatilla county from the funds in that appropriation the sum of $66,976.81, which sum Umatilla county was entitled to receive, in the event it provided by uniform levy on all the taxable property of the county for the specific purposes of market road construction during the year 1924, an amount equal to the above-mentioned sum apportioned to the county by the state highway commission.
The budget committee of Umatilla county, consisting of the county court and three duly and regularly appointed electors and freeholders of the county, prior to the 1st day of December, 1923, prepared and adopted, in the manner and form required by law, the annual budget for the county, and set forth therein an estimate of the total amount of money proposed to be raised by taxation upon the real and personal property in the county and expended for all purposes during the fiscal year next ensuing.
The budget so prepared and adopted include a specified item of $66,976.81, which the county proposed to levy for the purpose of availing itself of the amount apportioned to the county by the state highway commission from the state market road appropriation as above stated, and to expend the same, together with the sum received from the state market road fund, for the specific purpose of contructing market roads within the county. The total amount proposed to be raised by taxation, as shown by the aforesaid budget, was in excess of the tax limitation of the county, as prescribed by section 11, article 11, of the Constitution, to the extent of approximately $21,000. When completed and adopted by the budget committee as above stated, the aforesaid budget was delivered and submitted by the budget committee to the tax supervising and conservation commission of Umatilla county, Or., for the consideration of that commission, as required by the provisions of chapter 142, Laws 1923.
Thereafter on the 1st day of December, 1923, the county court of Umatilla county in regular session adopted a resolution declaring the desire and intention of Umatilla county to avail itself of the state market road law (chapter 431, Laws 1919), and caused a copy of the resolution to be served upon the tax supervising and conservation commission of Umatilla county.
After a hearing upon, and consideration of, the proposed budget for Umatilla county, the tax supervising and conservation commission of that county made findings and conclusions upon said budget, and the various items contained therein, whereby said budget was reduced by the commission in the aggregate sum of $92,591.81, and as a part of the reduction of said budget, the commission rejected the item of $66,976.81 included therein for market roads.
On December 4, 1923, the tax supervising and conservation commission by formal order directed the levying board of Umatilla county to levy a tax upon the real and personal property subject to assessment and taxation within said county, in accordance with the aforesaid findings and conclusions of the commission, for the purpose of meeting the necessary expenditure, which, in the judgment of the commission, should be made for the next ensuing fiscal year, which order, and findings, and conclusions upon which the same was based, were by the commission reported back in writing to the levying board of the county, and certified copies thereof were filed in the offices of the county clerk and county assessor of Umatilla county.
Thereafter on the 11th day of December, 1923, the county court of Umatilla county, at a regular term of said court, made and entered an order levying a tax in the sum of $66.976.81 upon all taxable property in Umatilla county for market road purposes to match the amount apportioned to Umatilla county from the state market road fund by the state highway commission, and by said order the county court directed the respondent, as county assessor, to extend the said tax so levied upon the rolls of Umatilla county as by law required. The respondent, as such assessor, refused to comply with said order, and refused to enter and apportion such tax and levy for market road purposes upon the assessment rolls of Umatilla county, and notified relators that he would not at any time enter and apportion such tax, unless ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction.
The respondent, as assessor, based his refusal to enter and apportion the item of taxes in question upon the assessment rolls upon the following objections: (1) That the market road law is unconstitutional, for the reason that the title of the act, as enacted by the Legislature, contains no reference to the levy of taxes by counties for the purpose of raising funds to construct market roads, or for any other purpose; (2) that the county court was without authority to levy a tax for market road purposes, and the statute prohibited its extension upon the assessment rolls after the item relating thereto had been rejected by the tax supervising and conservation commission; (3) that the addition of the item of $66,976.81 for market roads to the amount of taxes to be levied for other purposes produced a total in excess of the tax limitation of the county, as defined by section 11, article 11, of the Constitution.
Relators, in support of their petition for a permanent writ of mandamus, contend that taxes levied for market road purposes are, by chapter 431, Laws 1919, expressly excepted from the constitutional limitation above mentioned, and that the act providing for tax supervising and conservation commissions in the several counties of the state (chapter 142, Laws 1923) is unconstitutional and void, and the acts of the tax supervising and conservation commission of Umatilla county pursuant thereto are without authority, and null and void.
Considering first the validity of chapter 431, Laws 1919, relating to market roads, the bill for that act, it appears, was adopted by the Legislature as other bills are enacted, but it contained an express provision directing that the act should be referred to the people for their approval or rejection at the next regular or special election to be held throughout the state of Oregon. As the act came from the Legislature, it was merely a proposed law, and did not become valid or effective as a law until approved by a vote of the people. Section 1, article 4, Oregon Constitution.
The act was submitted to the voters of Oregon at the special election held June 3, 1919, Preparatory to its submission to the voters of the state the measure was supplied with a ballot title, which title was prepared by the Attorney General pursuant to the requirements of the initiative and referendum provisions of the Constitution and the legislation provided to facilitate the exercise of those powers.
While the title of the act, as the same was enacted by the Legislature, contains no reference to the levy of taxes by counties for market road purposes, and was therefore defective, the ballot title furnished by the Attorney General and which was a part of the measure as the same was submitted to the people remedied that defect.
The ballot title of the measure, as submitted to and approved by the people, retained the description of the subject-matter set forth in the legislative title, and also embraced therein the following phrase: "* * * Authorizing county courts to levy a property tax in each county for construction of market roads in an amount equal to the sum apportioned, to such county hereunder. * * *"
The requirement of section 20, article 4, of the Constitution, that "every act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title," was substantially complied with when the measure, as submitted to the people and as voted upon by them, was at that time supplied with a title which met the above constitutional requirement.
Section 5 of the market road law provides:
"The limitations imposed by section 11, article 11 of the Constitution * * * shall not apply * * * to any amount which may be levied or appropriated by any county for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony v. Veatch
... ... 3, Oregon Laws 1949, as adopted by the people of the state of ... Oregon through the initiative on November 2, ... [220 P.2d 499] New York ex rel. Kennedy v. Becker, 241 U.S. 556, 36 ... S.Ct. 705, ... on the north bank of the Columbia River in Klickitat County, ... Washington. At considerable expense, he removed ... remedied thereby. State ex rel. Umatilla County v ... Hawks, 110 Or. 497, 503, 222 P. 1071; ... ...
-
Sprague v. Fisher
...ballot titles which were submitted at the referendum election, then it would appear that the rule announced by this court in State v. Hawks, 110 Or. 497, 222 P. 1071, would apply. In that case the legislative title was held to be defective because it contained no reference to the levy of ta......
-
Trader's Guardianship, In re
...the constitutional provision is mandatory. Anthony v. Veatch, 189 Or. 462, 220 P.2d 493, 221 P.2d 575; State ex rel. Umatilla County v. Hawks, 110 Or. 497, 222 P. 1071; Brugger v. Wagner et al., 135 Or. 615, 297 P. 343. In the following cases, among many others, legislative enactments have ......
-
Hansen v. Malheur County
... ... The statutory requirement, that notice of county road bonds election state purpose of proposed bond issue, must be complied with to render election ... that no valid statute inconsistent therewith can be enacted: State ex rel. v. Hawks, 110 Or. 497, ... 160 Or. 590 ... 222 P. 1071. Certainly, a ... ...