222 P. 40 | Wyo. | 1924
This court’s original jurisdiction in mandamus as to state officers granted by the constitution is invoked by this proceeding. The relator, the Board of County Commissioners of Goshen County, seeks to have the state treasurer required to reimburse that county to the actual amount of the county tax on property exempted in said county in 1921 under the provisions of an act approved February 15, 1921, known as the Soldier’s Exemption Statute, and published as Ch. 50 of the Laws of thalj year. That act amended Sec. 2753, Comp. Stat. 1920, declaring certain described property to be exempt from taxation. The section was thereby amended by reenacting the 4th and 5th paragraphs thereof and adding a 6th paragraph. The 5th paragraph of the section had declared exempt the property of all honorably discharged veterans of the Civil War to the amount of $2000 in assessed valuation, and it was amended and reenacted by the statute in question so as to exempt to said amount of assessed valuation the property of all honorably discharged veterans of the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the World War, their widows during their widowhood, and all nurses who served during the World War, and by adding a provision that no person shall be entitled to such ex-
The case was previously beard on a demurrer to the application for the wi’it (212 Pac. 771) raising certain questions as to the constitutionality of the statute, and the statute was held to be valid in every respect in which it was assailed, including the 6tb paragraph again before us, this time for construction. We might add to the authorities then cited sustaining the validity of that paragraph the following :
Bexar Co. v. Linden, 110 Tex. 339, 220 S. W. 761; A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 85 Okla. 161, 204 Pac. 910; Town of Milton v. Cook, 244 Mass. 93, 138 N. E. 589. The court say in the Texas case:
"The effect of the statute * * * is to set apart the excess fees of District Attorneys and other officials as State funds for governmental purposes of the átate with whose execution the counties, as instrumentalities of the State, are charged. Such a dedication is in no true sense a grant of public money. It is but an appropriation of funds of the State for the uses of the State. It is‘therefore a constitutional use, having no character of a bounty or gratuity. ’ ’
■ The said 6th paragraph is generally understood and may be described as providing for reimbursement by the state to the several counties for tax losses on account of such exemptions. It reads as follows:
‘ ‘ Sixth. — It shall be the duty of the several county treasurers throughout the State of Wyoming to submit to the state treasurer, on or before the first day of March in each year, a certified statement of the exemptions allowed by said counties, under the provisions of this act, and on or before the first day of May following, said state treasurer shall reimburse each of such counties to the actual amount of the county tax on such property exempted, less poll taxes so exempted by such counties. ’ ’
An answer was thereafter filed by the respondent admitting everything alleged in the petition or application as amended, except: It denies that Goshen County lost through said exemptions the total amount alleged, or any sum greater than $3230.50, the aggregate of the loss of $1951.33 of the general county tax, $924.60 of the general county school tax, and $354.62 of the general county bond sinking fund tax, and that the respondent is willing and able to pay said amount. And it alleges that the respondent is prohibited from paying money from the state treasury except upon warrant drawn by the proper officers after a proper audit of the claim; that it is the duty of the state auditor to audit all claims against the state; that no warrant has been drawn by the auditor against any fund in the respondent’s hands to pay relator’s claim, and that said claim has never been
The principal question — the amount payable from the state treasury under the statute — arises from a dispute over the meaning of “county tax” as used in the 6th paragraph aforesaid, requiring reimbursement to the counties; the county contending that it includes all the taxes levied and collected in the county, including special school district tax, school district bond tax, and taxes levied for cities and towns, and the respondent contending that it includes only such taxes as are levied for county revenue or county purposes, as distinguished from school district and municipal taxes. There is a brief also filed on behalf of Natrona County contending as the respondent does. It is conceded by both parties, as it must certainly be held, that the term “county tax” as used in the statute does not include State taxes. No county can be entitled to reimbursement for any loss of state taxes. It does not lose them; the state does and it bears the loss.
It was said by this court in State v. Laramie ■ County, 8 Wyo. 104, 55 Pac. 451, explaining our taxing procedure:
“Our scheme of taxation embraces a direction or fixing of a rate for state taxes by the state board of equalization, a notification thereof to the county clerk of each county, andj a levy therefor, together with a levy of county and school taxes, by the board of county commissioners. The assessment rolls are prepared by the county assessors, the valuations of railroad and telegraph lines and of live stock being- fixed by the state board. The tax lists are prepared by the county clerks, and upon the several county treasurers as collectors of taxes, devolves the duty of collecting the state, county, and school taxes in their respective counties. ’ ’
The general authority for. a levy of taxes by the county, originally enacted in 1869, is now found in the second paragraph of section 2752, Comp. Stat. 1920.'(Comp. L. 1876, Ch. 109, Sec. 1; R. S. 1887, Sec. 3768). It is thereby provided in substance; That the county board shall annually levy a tax for the support of the common schools in the county not to exceed three mills on the dollar. For county revenue, for all purposes, a tax, not to exceed twelve mills on the dollar, including general school tax and exclusive of state revenue, except for the payment of its public debt and interest thereon. The paragraph also contains limitations upon expenditures for certain stated county purposes, such as support of the poor, and road purposes.
The term “county tax” or “county taxes” from the beginning of our statutory taxing procedure has been re
This court said in the case of McCague Inv. Co. v. Mallin, 25 Wyo. 373, 170 Pac. 763:
“School district taxes are not levied for county revenue, and they are independent of the general school tax * * * The general school tax is a tax authorized by statute to be levied upon all taxable property of the county, and is not a tax for county purposes or county revenue. ’ ’
In the earlier ease of Powder R. Cattle Co. v. Com’rs., 3 Wyo. 598, 29 Pac. 361, 31 Pac. 278, it was held that the general school tax is not a tax for ‘ ‘ county purposes. ’ ’ And in Sch. Dist. v. Com’rs., 15 Wyo. 73, 86 Pac. 24, 11 Ann. Cas. 1058, the court said as to certain school district taxes:
' ‘ The county treasurer is by virtue of his office collector of taxes * * *. As such collector of taxes he received the moneys involved in this suit, which belonged neither to the state nor the county; and he was not authorized to pay the same into the county treasury. It formed a fund distinct in itself, separate and apart from the general- school fund of the county, the disposition of which is independent of the Board of County Commissioners, and, unlike the general fund for school purposes, it is neither apportioned nor paid out on order of the county superintendent of schools. ’ ’
Notwithstanding that the general school tax levied by a county is not a tax strictly for county revenue, yet it is levied alike upon all taxable property in the county, and when collected is distributed upon a proportionate basis fixed by statute among the several school districts in the county; and it was included with taxes for county revenue in the statutory provision limiting the annual rate of tax for such revenue, and is so included in the provision of the Constitution limiting the annual tax for that purpose.
Whether special school district taxes, including high school districts, taxes to pay interest and principal upon district bonds, and city or town taxes may likewise be included is a different and perhaps a more difficult question. If it might be proper to construe the term “county tax,” when used in a statute, as including all or either of such taxes where the intention that they or either shall be included should clearly appear from the other provisions of the statute, in view of its purpose, we are quite unable to discern any such intention in the words or purpose of this statute. It is said that laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation, and with a knowledge of all existing laws on the same subject. Suth. Stat. Constr., See. 137. And certainly we may assume that the members of the legislature have been sufficiently interested in the public affairs of their state or at least of their county to know how money is raised by taxation for the public schools, and the county government, and to have become acquainted with the distinction between a county tax and a school district tax or a city or town tax.
But, assuming that said power would exist if the statute had plainly provided for the inclusion of the loss of school district and municipal taxes or should be construed as so providing, the point is that the absence of language plainly so providing strongly indicates a lack of intention by the legislature to include them. And that is further indicated by the provision in the General appropriation act of the same session appropriating a sum for the purpose of said reimbursement. That provision declares that a stated sum is appropriated “to reimburse the various counties of the state for loss incurred by them on account of the amendment to the 5th paragraph of Section 2753 * * * relating to Soldiers Exemptions.” L. 1921, Ch. 70, Sec. 34b. Thus it states that the reimbursement is for “loss” incurred by1 ‘ ‘ them, ’ ’ the various counties, without the slightest suggestion that the appropriation may or is intended to be used to replace any loss sustained by school districts, cities or towns. The very clear intention of the statute to replace a loss is carelessly expressed in the paragraph in question, for it declares that the treasurer shall reimburse to the actual amount “of the county tax on such property exempted.” There will, of course, be no tax on the property or value thereof exempted. What was clearly intended is to reimburse for a loss of the tax because of the exemption. And that is plainly stated in the appropriation act, but without it we have not hesitated to construe the statute as so providing, to carry out its evident purpose.
Since a county is a taxing agency of the state as well as a body politic and corporate for the purpose of exercising its delegated powers of county government (see State v. Laramie county, supra), we do not much doubt that the term “county tax” might be so used in a statute as to require it to be construed as distinguished only from state taxes, as determined by the purpose of the statute and the language employed to effectuate it. But the intention to so
The other question presented by the present demurrer relates to the duty of the respondent, generally, in paying-out money from the state treasury. The following constitutional and statutory provisions are in point:
Const. Art XVI, Sec. 7: “No money shall be paid out of the state treasury except upon appropriation by law and on warrant drawn by the proper officer, and no bills, claims, accounts or demands against the state, or any county or political sub-division, shall be audited, allowed or paid until a full itemized statement in writing, verified by affidavit, shall be filed with the officer or officers whose duty it may be to audit the same. ’ ’
Comp. Stat. 1020, Sec. 118: ‘ ‘ The duties of the state auditor shall be: First — Audit and settle all claims against the state payable out of the treasury, except oniy such claims as may be expressly required by law to be audited and settled by other officers and persons. Second — Draw all warrants upon the treasurer for money. Third — Express in the body of any warrant * * * the particular fund appropriated by law out of which the same is to be paid. Fourth — Audit, settle and adjust the accounts of the collectors of the revenue, and other holders of public money, who are required by law to pay the same into the treasury. Fifth — To keep an account between the state and the state treasury * * *. ’ ’
Comp. Stat. 1920, Sec. 132: ‘ ‘ The treasurer shall in no case disburse or pay out of the state funds except on warrants drawn by the auidtor. ’ ’
‘1 It would still be open to the treasurer to protect his of•fice and the state by requiring that any claim presented under the statute shall be audited, and that a warrant shall first be issued by the proper state officer for the payment of any such claim. And the court in this case, upon any final order directing1 the payment of the alleged claim or any part of it, can likewise provide for a compliance with the provisions of the Constitution in that respect. ’ ’
A county’s claim for reimbursement under this statute is not of the same class as an ordinary indebtedness or obligation of the state, but, as shown by the former opinion, the statute provides, in effect, for the transfer of public money front one public treasury to another, still to be used for governmental purposes. Wherefore we doubt that such claim should be controlled by the provision aforesaid of the Constitution requiring a verification by affidavit, but in that respect we think the official certificate of the county treasurer required by the statute necessarily to be based upon public records should be held sufficient. There should, of course, be an audit of the claim in the sense of a determination in some manner of the amount to be paid. And the issuance of a warrant by the auditor, for such payment is clearly essential. Under Section 118, C. S. 1920, however, the auditor need not conduct the preliminaries of the audit and settlement where the claim is expressly required by law to be audited and settled by other officers, and persons, though the auditor must, no doubt, in every case satisfy himself that there has been such a determination of the amount due as to authorize the issuance of the demanded warrant. And that situation is presented under several statutes providing for the transfer or distribution of state treasury funds to another public treasury. It has been pro
By the provision that the several county treasurers shall submit to the state treasurer “a certified statement” of the exemptions in said counties under the statute, it is clearly intended, we think, that the amount payable to each county shall be determined by the state treasurer, and that the said certified statement shall furnish the necessary information for such détermination. And the state treasurer may, no doubt, require that said certified statements of county treasurers shall be reasonably sufficient in form and substance to show the facts and figures necessary to a proper determination of the amount or amounts due. It is necessary, however, that he should have the auditor’s warrant before paying out the money from the treasury; but we can see no objection to the issuance of the required warrant upon a certificate of the state treasurer filed with the auditor, showing the several amounts due as determined by him, with a request of the treasurer for the warrant in each case, not
"We conclude, therefore, that the comity tax, as used in the statute in question, does not include school district or municipal taxes, or taxes for the payment of the interest or principal upon bonds of school districts, cities or towns, but that it does include the general county school tax provided for in section 2752, Comp. Stat. 1920, by the words that the county commissioners “shall annually levy a tax for the support of the common schools in their county, not to exceed three mills on the dollar. ’ ’
The demurrer to the answer will be overruled pro forma, and unless a desire is expressed within ten days to further plead an order will be entered requiring the respondent treasurer to act upon the county treasurer’s certified statement, if sufficient in form and substance, and upon determining the amount due the relator county for the loss of the