Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for The People's Voice
Domestic News July 16, 1941

The People's Voice

Helena, Lewis And Clark County, Montana

What is this article about?

Lewis and Clark County filed a lawsuit in the Montana Supreme Court challenging the state welfare board's allocation of $250,000 in relief funds to only 28 counties with the smallest per capita valuations, arguing it violates the legislature's directive to apportion to all 56 counties proportionally. The court issued a writ of mandate.

Merged-components note: Merged continuation of state relief board ruling story from page 1 to page 3.

Clippings

1 of 2

OCR Quality

75% Good

Full Text

STATE
RELIEF
BOARD
RULING
ON
ALLOTMENTS
TO COUNTIES CHALLENGED
Lewis and Clark County Brings
Action in
Supreme Court to Prevent Board
Allotting
State Appropriation for Welfare
Aid to
Counties to Only 28 of the State
Counties
As Ordered at Their Last Board
Meeting.

Challenging the right of the state welfare board to allot all
of the state appropriation of $250,000 for relief purposes to
28 of the counties of the state having the smallest per capita
valuations, the county of Lewis and Clark on Monday filed an
action in the Montana supreme court to compel the board to
apportion the relief funds to all of the 56 counties of the
state. The petition filed by Lewis and Clark county claimed
that the board in a
of the funds to only half of the
counties of the state had vio-
lated the decree of the legisla-
ture which directed that the
appropriation should be appor-
tioned in inverse proportion to
the taxable valuation per cap-
ita of all of the counties, and
contended that Lewis and
Clark county under that pro-
vision would be entitled to
$8,300 where under the board's
allotment it would receive
nothing.

In compliance with the petition, the
supreme court issued an alternative
writ of mandate directing the welfare
board to rescind its action in allocat-
ing all of the relief funds to 28 coun-
ties or to show cause why it should
not do so.

The petition filed by Lewis and
Clark county, recited that the follow-
ing counties, not included in the wel-
fare board's list of counties to receive
allotments from the state relief appro-
priation, were. on the basis of taxable
valuation per capita. entitled to the
following: Beaverhead, $2,600; Broad-
water, $1,100! Choteau, $1,700; Fallon,
$1,600; Gallatin, $7,700; Glacier, $1,-
080; Granite, $970; Jefferson, $1,380;
Park, $5,292; Pondera, $2,050; Powell
$1.800; Sanders. $1,700: Rosebud, $1,
100; Stillwater, $2,200. Computations
of what other counties might be en-
titled to had not been estimated up to
the time of filing the petition.

Study Made
The welfare board in making the
(Continued on Page Three)
State Relief
(Continued from Page One)

allotment to the 28 counties stated that it had based its allotment on a study of the history of poor fund receipts and expenditures in the counties of Montana over a period of four years, the present condition of the poor funds in the several counties and the average taxable valuation per capita. The board also claimed to have made a study of the prospective needs of the counties and the probable revenues in the various counties with which to meet relief demands.

The Civil Service Commission has five grades of administrative positions, mostly in national defense agencies.

What sub-type of article is it?

Legal Or Court Charity Or Relief

What keywords are associated?

Montana Relief Funds Welfare Board Allotment Supreme Court Challenge Lewis And Clark County State Appropriation

Where did it happen?

Montana

Domestic News Details

Primary Location

Montana

Event Date

On Monday

Outcome

supreme court issued an alternative writ of mandate directing the welfare board to rescind its action or show cause why not.

Event Details

Lewis and Clark County filed a petition in the Montana Supreme Court challenging the state welfare board's allotment of $250,000 relief appropriation to only 28 counties with smallest per capita valuations, claiming violation of legislative directive to apportion inversely to taxable valuation per capita across all 56 counties. The county contended it was entitled to $8,300 but received nothing. The petition listed entitlements for other excluded counties based on per capita valuations. The board based its decision on studies of poor fund history, conditions, needs, and revenues.

Are you sure?