The Nevada journal., 1861-10-11
PM srRrsF.. ERIDCE.

L. L
The decision of the sIp~em- Court in tie
Pine Street Bridge case has, 32en given End
1na- be found Glow Il VIII be found m
erest.ns;
Xezse,, r,. tie Truste,y Of Ne' ada.-7lain
-ir seeks ov this action, which is assump-
sit. to test tho ycTdiy of an Ace of the
legislature oassed in SO, entitled " Ar
Act to provide for the constructio4 of Il
ridge in the cit: + N,yad-." Statutes P.
78)
in 1856 .re At iLcorpors'i ing til, city Of
Ne.ada wcs pas ed oy witch powel was
given. among other things, to levy ana col
lect ar~ualy tax o. I'll proneIt~ n the
city not axceedi lg enc per cent Of the as
sess,l .aluation .hereof. This Ace r'as
a.AeLded n s58, by an act limH.ngtho AK
10 lne na1f Of one per cont- BY he At OF
1861. tie municipal loard al, ''autho'lze
aid empowered in .ne.r discretion 20 le y
and collect srecit. ia, not >1ete1ing
dye-cighths OF one rer ceT,., fol -hG COZ
s,ruction O. bridge within the ely lirn..s;
and It i provided tlla. such tag shall fe
levied upon the valuation G. cit rrJpe"ty
80 fxed b, tie assessment r1ll Of tho ci'y
made by the City Asscsse- drrina tE@ veal
A. D. $500
B, yirtr0 Of t14s Act, the Board 'asset
an ordi4ance-set TO. th in trtcord-'tvy
ing ta~ O. fye-eiohtbs of ere per cert. on
all city property, to be pportiorel aAa col
lected IN the assessment Of 1861.
.he s,at.te o. -8JI, but net the ord
nance, provided thai ,he ~alration as f1od
bv the roll Cf ls6e might be added &c OF
rlodieed I tn Bolrc C Trustees s'-li12
as a BIRD If Equalization. A." 'iue 81
vh.,h dr9 notice should be gwen
Tnc BoarL dill sit 70 seyerel days ,ne
only 2ot,ct d sr@l s'tdng berg prt'i''-
tim in the cr,y newspaper.
P.aiat;Fd.d net item aAC &c chance
vas made Il hi assessment
:. Is conten5ca oY he appel'eA-, P'oinaf
:,,lsw. tns this At cf 1881 Is arScusitr
,o?ol. for tho .ca7on ,has 1t hrnsfeT7 leg
.sIo.;ye 20 rer- f~cm tue Lels-stqte t th'.
lo:al Board.
The .earneu aid elabo-ate mgumHnt Q.
tie appellants counsel merits attenti 2r
chiefly as manifestation Of eStraoroinar.
ingenuity exhausted upon question too
,I,in to he obscu cd or illustrated by it.
We regard this Act OF 1861 as nothing
moe ror loss than an Amendment Of th'
charter of municipal corporation 'ha
lie legislature had the same power &
..,e,d as to make the charter; that it ha'
.l.e SINE power to increase tie tax as tt
ii,li, it: and the same power to authorz
ms special tax as to authorize the genera
*: and that this is no transfer Of legisla
&c powers any more than ever powe
r:ven to municipal corporation IS sncI
transfer. Many Acts Of similar natur
,,ve been passed by the Legislator appIi
ocrle TO other towns and ciies, and to hol,
eaeu. ola would lead to great confusion
ara so to hold would be unwarrautcd b.
,,,lretple or authority, {See Blandjng vs.
Burr 3 Cal
The next objection is that the Act
cid Because the tax is apportioned accord
5n~tc tlc assessmtat roll of the previous
~ae, ". zee nothing unconstitutional il
,h;. There is no Constitutional requiTe
me,t ior annual assessments. If the Leg
islature chose, we do not see why propert,
should not be taxed for several years at
given rae shown by a particular estlma'
or vaiuatioa. This assessment is but
mode ofreacring the value, etc. and take
can never be app9rtioned with exact uni
formity or exact justice. We cannot judi
cially know that property has varied il
value since 1850 IN Nevada, or that it ha
changed uands to an. considerable extent
If individual injustice has been done, thi
is not az objection to the whole law, but
at most. would only 5ntitle the partic a
party injured to relief Besides, the Ac
afforded means ofccrTectior Of errors com
mitted tc the prejudice of the taxpayers
As to the provision for the correction o
ele list, the Act OF the Legislature wa
enough without .b. ordinance ofthe town
As to notice OF The meeting of he Boar
of Equalization, If an! thing more was ne
cessarv than the pr5licatiop, see CoveH y.
Doub az Cal. 274.)
The judgment is affirmed
BALDWIN, J.