Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-09-17
EQUALIZATION PROBLEM.
WHAT PRESIDENT DUTToN AND At
ToRNEY CATLIN THINK.
The Supreme Court Decides Against the
state Board Of Equalization as to
Inquiry into Individual
Assessments.

! On receipt of the news yesterday that the
State Board of Equalization had been by the
Supreme Court perpetually enjoined from
raising or lowering individual assessments, a
representative of the RECORD UNION called
upon Warren Dutton, President of the State
Board of Equalization, and requested to
know his views of the matter.
Question-Mr. Dutton, what will be the eff
feet of the Supreme Court decision?
Answer have not seen the opinion yet.
We have telegram informing us that writ
of prohibition has been ordered permanently
to run against US. Its effect is to establish
that we have no jurisdiction over any assess
ment ON the roll, and are limited in our
powers to equalization as between counties.
Q-That Is, that you can raise or lower in
aggregate by per centum.
A.-Yes, on all the different classes of
property.
Q.-Sappose Doe is admittedly assessed to
full value, but Roe is admittedly assessed too
low and that you raise the aggregate roll .
given per cent. on the property OF their
county, is not Doe unjustly burdened IN
order to make Roe pay his fair share?
IL
real estate improvements on such real estate
and personal property, except money, by
such per centum Of addition or reduction as Is
sufficient to raise or reduce TO full cash value.
Q.-Can you 60 on and take testimony as
TO individual assessments, as You have been
doing?
Al think so, in order TO gain proper in
formation as to true values, and to inform
the Board as TO the proper assessment aggre-
gate in a county.
Q.-Then your process will be the same,
bus your final action different?
A-Yes.
Q.-Can you say what the Board will do
in the matter now?
Al cannot; we have not yet decided ]
cannot tell what the course of the Board will
be.
Q.-What time have you left in which to
equalize?
A.-Until Saturday, We must fix the tax
levy that day.
$50 hereafter local Boards must equal
ize individual assessments?
A-Yes their action is now absolute.
Mr.. cATLIN's VIEWS.
A T. Catlin, who has been of counsel for
the Board, was next called upon and ques-
toned as to his view of the case.
Q-What is the case, plainly stated, which
the Supreme Court has just decided, and
what is its effect, Mr. Catlin?
Accomplishments whose individual assess
ments were being inquired into petitioned the
Supreme Court for writs of prohibition, and
set forth that the State Board exceeds its
authority in proceeding to act upon individ-
ual assessments of petitioners, with view OF
increasing the same over and above the
values placed thereon by the Assessors and
County Boards of Equalization in the several
counties that, in short, the Board has only
authority to increase or lower the entire
assessment roll of county.
Q-What did the State Board claim?
Alt claimed under the ninth subdivision
of Section 3692 of the Political Code and Sec
ton 8, Article XIII. of the Constitution, it had
the right g to increase or lower the entire
Mereia." Mr.. Catlin here referred to the
Constitution and the statute in full
The ninth section of Article XIII. of the
Constitution reads:
State Board of Equalization, consisting Of one
member from each Congressional District in this
state snail be elected by the qualified electors OF
their respective districts at the general election to
be held in the year 1870 whose term of office after
those first elected shall be four years, whose duty it
shalt be to equalize the valuation OF the taxable
properly Of the several counties in the State for
the purposes OF taxation, The Controller OF
State shall be ex otficio member OF the Board.
The Boards Of Supervisors Of the several counties
OF the State shall constitute Boards of Equalization
for their respective counties whose duty 1t shall be
equaliZe the valuation OF the taxable property in
the county for the purpose OF taxation provided,
such State and County Boards OF Equal cation are
hereby authorized and empowered, under such
rules OF notice as the County Boards may prescribe
to the county assessments, and under such rules
OF notice the State Board may prescribe, as TO the
action of the State Board to increase or loer the
entire assessment roll, or any assessment con
IL. lie. nrv.Fr q
the property contained in said assessment roll, and
make the assessment conform to the true value in
money Of the property contained in said roll.
The statute 1850 follows the Constitution.
Subdivigians S, and 10, Section 1862, Politi-
cal Code, reads referring to the State Board
s. To meet at the State Capitol on tie third Mon
day in August, and remain in session from day to
day, Sundays excepted, until the third Monday in
September.
Q. At such meeting to equalize the valuation of
the taxable operty OF the several counties in this
State for the purposes OF taxation; aud to that
end under such rules Of notice TO the Clerk of the
Board Of Supervisors Of the county afecte thereby
as it may prescribe to increase or lower the entie
ass lssnent roll, or any assessment contained
therein 50 rs TO equalize the assessment of the
property contained in said roll and make the
ment conform to the true value in money 10 the
property assessed and to FIX the rate of State taxa
ton and to do the things provided IN Section 1908
Of said Code
10. To visit as a Board, or by the irdiv dual mem
bers thereof whenever deemed necessary, the sew
era counties OF the State, for the purpose OF in
speeding the property and learning the value there
Q.-This statute of 1880 was an amend.
ment 70 the Code?
Ayes; amending 50 as to conform to
the Coz stItution.
Q.-And what do you understand the SUI
prelne Court to have decided?
A-By granting the writs OF prohibition
it has decided that the State Board has no
power to act on an individual assessment for
the purposes Of increasing or decreasing the
same, aud is limited to the power to increase
or lower the valuation Of the entire assess
ment roll for the purposes Of equalizing the
general valuations between all the counties.
/ OF course, | have not vet seen the opinion,
aud do not know what its line Of reasoning Is.
/ Q ii the Board has the power conceded
! to lower or raise the entire roll Of a county,
| how viii this affect those individual assess
ments admittedly correct as cay A Is as
sessed for so 900 of values at full cash value,
lille b is assessed on So coo, coo of value
hut put down for only 81 500 eco for instance.
VIII not an increase of the roll 10 such cases
work hardships?
A.-Most certainly, inevitably, and that is
one Of the difficulties in the way of making a
general increase or reduction. Smaller tax
PAYERS are usually assessed nearer to full cash
values than larger ones. Formerly, but not
so much recently, counties assessed at 65, rs
and so per cent of true value and made the
individual assessments through the county
run on level in that respect; but the power
left to the State Board to raise whole roll,
| By adding a percentage to 1t, will tend to
make the county assessments come up all
around TO the true cash value, as commanded
| by the law. If it was not for this power.
| they would fall back into the old groove, I'M
| doub:edly.
Q.-You think, then, that after ALL the
new system will make it to the interest OF
the smaller owners of property to see to 1t
that the larger properties are assessed at
| full cash values,
! Al will have that tendency.
| Q-Is there any way save by an amend
ment to the Constitution TO give to the State
! Board the power to inquire into individual as
sessments for the purposes OF increase or OF
reduction!
A.-None, save by amendment to the Con-
stitution.
THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Shortly after the close of the foregoing in
/ terviews, the full text of the opinion OF the
Supreme Court came to hand. The decision
/ is by Ross, J.; Morrison, Q. j., Mckinstry,
Thornton and Myrick, j., coneurring,
and Sharpstein aud Mckee, JJ., dis
senting. The case is that Of Wells,
Fargo & Co. Vs. the State Board OF Equal
iz&tiou. The Court says there is but
simple question in the case, i. e., the con-
4 struction of Section Q Article XIII, OF the