The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-05-27
~ 771NN70 NTME 81. Al a m ~
Boards of EQUALIZATION,

j ]. {
Boards of Equalization.
The power of taxation is one of the
highest and most delicate prerogatiyes
OF any government. IL is demanding
and forcibly taking aportion OF the pri-
vate property of its citizens to defray
the expenses OF their Government. Such
power, in free government, should be
most wisely and prudertly exercised, to
the end that no unnecessary burden
should be imposed, and that the amount
actually required should be equitably
equalized upon the property of the COM
munlty. ...0.....s.. .f.
To execute this purpose in the adjust
ment of taxation, property appraise-
ments are to be made by different o1li-
cials in their prescribed localities.
These collected 'appraisals are then to
be submitted to the consideration OF a
common Board ef judicious men, in or
der that any serious disparities of opin-
ion in regard to the appraisements may
be compared and corrected, and a just
equalization of values be established as
the basis for taxation in the community
within their jurisdiction.
1t has been considered that these
Boards of Equalization, while author
lied to equalize, as among themselves,
the appraisements as varlously returned,
had not the power of adding to and TAX
ing from the valuations of rea! estate as
reported by the local appraisers. Such,
as we understandit, has been the ruling
of our State Auditor. But this construc-
tion OF the law touching the powers of
our Board OF Equalization, has been con-
travened by recent decision of Judge
Yaple. OF the Superior Court Of Cincln-
matt, and a contrary decision rendered
at special term.
This placed our Auditor Humphreys
in q dilemma, having the instructions Of
his State superior as the one horn, and
the judicial opinion OF the Superior
Court on the other. He discreetly rep
resented his position to the Auditor OF
State at Columbus; and the latter very
properly laid the case before the Attor-
ney General for his opinion and advice.
The Attorney General, without giving
any opinion as to the legal correctness
of Judge Yaple's decision, advised the
Auditor of State that the Superior
Courts decision, while unreyersed, must
be taken as the law OF the case SO far as
our County Auditor is concerned; and
the State Auditor instructed Auditor
Humphreys accordingly. And SO the
matter now stands.
But this anomalous condition oil
things, where the Auditor and Board OF
Equalization of one county proceed un-
der this ruling Of our local court, and
the like officers of the other counties
proceed under the different rul-
ing of the Auditor OF
State. ought not to be suffered to con-
tinue any longer than may be necessary
10 have the question authoritatiyely set
tied Tor Uniform practice throughout the
State.
1t was doubtless in view Of the i'm
portance Of this question of equalizing
the property valuations of the State un-
der some uniform rule, thatthe Attorney
General very properly suggested to the
State Auditor that the matter should
be taken to the Supreme Court at once
and have this vexed question settled.
! In regard to that mode of determining
She matter there would arise some diff
culties Of legal practice. The present
case before Judge Yaple having been