l6 FOREST commissioner's REPORT. 



that meeting, made according to the facts, and it was properly attested 

 by him. The fact that it was not made until February, iQii, did not 

 affect its validity. The clerk could make the record of the meeting a,t 

 any time during the year following his election. 



2. It is objected that the records of the plantation do not show 

 before whom the alleged assessors qualified, as required by Chapter 4, 

 Section ij. Revised Statutes. It was held in Hale et al vs. Gushing, 2 

 Maine, 218, that the statute requiring such a certificate to be returned 

 and filed, was directory, and that case has been cited with approval, al- 

 though the same point was not directly involved, in Purrington vs. Dun- 

 ning, II Maine, 176; Chapman vs. Inhabitants of Limerick, 56 Maine, 

 390, and Farnsworth Co. vs. Rand, 65 Maine, 19, and is decisive of that 

 objection. 



3. It is objected that the record fails to show a legal qualification of 

 the assessors. The record states that J. L. Clark was chosen first asses- 

 sor by ballot, and duly qualified. The record states the same as to the 

 other two assessors, except it states that S. H. Learned was chosen 

 second assessor and C. S. Marden third assessor. The only act that 

 either of them could do, and should do, to qualify them as assessors 

 was to take the oath of office, and the record says they duly qualified. 



We think the words of the record, showing that they each, naming 

 them, duly qualified is at least prima facie evidence that they were 

 sworn as required by law, and nothing appearing in the case to overcome 

 that presumption, that they were authorized to perform the duties of 

 assessors. 



4. It is objected that the assessors had no authority to commit the 

 taxes prior to J.ime i, iQio, and the evidence shows that they were com- 

 mitted, April 21, 1910. Section 90, Chapter 86, Public Laws of 1905, 

 reads : "In July of each year said assessors shall commit the same 

 with a warrant in the usual form to the collector of taxes." The law 

 contemplates that when the taxes are committed, all things have been 

 done by the assessors to complete the assessment, and the date of the 

 commitment to the collector has nothing to do with the validity of the 

 assessment, and to rule that, by committing the taxes to the collector 

 before the date named in the statute, rendered the assessment void, 

 would be to hold that an act of the assessors that had nothing to do 

 with the assessment, that was after the assessment had been completed, 

 would render the assessment void. The assessment was made as of 

 April I, iQio. and whether the assessors completed their duties in April 

 or July would not affect the validity of the assessment, and the direc- 

 tion in the statute to commit the tax to the collector in July of each 

 year was directory. 



The next objection is that the Forestry district tax is unconstitutional, 

 because it places a burden on all real property within the limits of tWe 

 district, in addition to all other property taxes assessed throughout the 

 state, and the case of Dyer vs. Farmington Village Corporation, 70 

 Maine, 515, is cited as sustaining that position. In that case the legis- 

 lature authorized the Farmmgton Village Corporation, by a two-thirds 



