Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-09-17

power IS conferred on the County Boards In
respect to the rolls of their respective coun.
ties. To do so would not only lead to the
most glaring absurdities and serious conflicts
between the respective Boards, but would
make the proviso inconsistent with the body
of the section and contrary to the funda-
mental idea Of equalization" The County
! Boards are given
POWER TO EQUALIzE
In the csunty, j. e., to compare assessments
one with the other, and make them equal,
but County Board cannot increase or lower
| the entire assessment roll upon any theory of
equalization. No County Board can look at
the assessment roll Of any county but its
own. The Court say sit, therefore, can
have nothing with which to compare the as
sessment roll of its own county as whole /;
and yet the very idea of equalization of me-
cessity presupposes something with which to
compare the thing to be equalized. The con-
struction contended for on the part of the
| State Board would compel us to hold not
| only that the State Board has the same power
as the respective County Boards to increase
or lower any individual assessment in an as
sessment roll, but that the County Boards
have the like power with the State Board to
| increase or lower the entire assessment roll
of their respective counties, and that, too,
without any power of comparing the roll
with anything"
IF BOTH BOARDS HAVE THE POWER
| To raise and lower the entire assessment roll,
and County Board should lower its roll 10
per cent. and the State Board raise it 10 per
cent, which would be the valid assessment
Or suppose a County Board should raise an
individual assessment and the State Board
should lower it. what then? The Constitu-
ton has given the State Board no appellate
he c{i ~ he flnuntx- Roar1s
The reading therefore of the constitutional
section, as commended for by the State Board,
would lead to serious and absurd results.
But read the proviso distributively redendo
slagula singulis, and the whole equalization
system provided by the Constitution is SYM
metrical and harmonious and accords with
that manifest intent of local government
which permeates almost every part of the Con-
sti.ution. The County Boards are more
familiar with property in their counties than
the State Board can be- and it was wise there
fore to limit the powers of the State Board to
the equalization of the assessment rolls of the
various counties by comparing the assessment
rolls of each county with the rolls of each and
all the others, and thus make the assessment
conform to the true value in money of the
property contained in the respective rolls,
while to the local Boards is given the power
only to increase or lower individual assess
HeHl5. linus edCH bOdTu DSCOlucS ooaiO
of Equalization. The Court thus
CONCLUDE.
eff the State Board can interfere with
individual assessments upon an assessment
roll, it must examine all of the other indi-
vidual assessments, for in that way alone can
the assessments be equalized. Now, the time
allowed by the statute for the action of the
State Board of Equalization is, and the time
that can be allowed by any law that can be
passed upon the subject, must of necessity be
limited to brief period for the State Board
certainly cannot act before the assessment
rolls are made up, and must act before the
taxes are paid. 1t is perfectly plain that any
time that could be allowed between these
periods would make it impossible for the
State Board to act upon the many thousand
individual assessments within the State. And
we think it clear that the trainers of the Con-
stitution never intended that they should do
so.'
DISSENTING OPINION.
Mr.. Justice Sharpstein files a dissenting
opinion, and says that by reading all the por
lions of the section together that relate to.
the State Board, the intention is in all rea-
sonably clear. He says: " 1t seems to me
that they should be read as follows: 1t shall
be the duty Of the State Board of Equaliza-
ton to equalize the valuation of the taxable
property OF the several COuuIle5 OIL bue Otdbc
for the purposes Of taxation, and, under such
rules it may prescribe for its action, to in
crease or lower the entire assessment roll, or
any assessment contained therein, so as to
equalize the assessment of the property con-
tanned in said assessment roll, and make the
assessment conform to the true value in
money of the property asse ssed.' The pro-
viso is not repugnant to anything that pre-
cedes It. To 'equalize the valuation OF the
taxable property Of the sereral counties is TO
equalize it in each separate county, distinct
from any other county. In this view there
is no inconsistency between the clause of the
proviso which confers upon the State Board
the power to increase or lower any assess
ment contained in any roll, and the preceding
clause, which confers upon that Board the
power to equaIize the valuation of the taxable
property of each separate and distinct county.
There is no clause outside Of the proviso
which confers upon the State Board the
power to increase or lower the entire assess
ment roll of any county. Without the aid
OF the proviso, it would be extremely difficult
to ascertain what powers were intended to be
given to the State Board.