The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-01-28
THE TAX LAW.
SALT LAKE CITY. Jan. 26. 80.

SALT LAKE CITY. Jan. 26, 80.
Editors Herald:
You and tie readers OF the HERALl
will notice that in one of the letter
to me, published in my letter to yoI
OF the 23d inst, the communication
to me from the recorder of CedaI
City, Mr.. Haybourne, that a commit
tee of investigation expressed the
opinion that the property in the city.
both real and personal, was, under the
law Of 1878, assessed too high. II 60
| this is not the fault of the law. The
law of that year-p. II, sec. 3; p. 16.
sec. 17-requires the property ito be
assessed at q fair cash valuation. II
that city has cause of complaint on
that account the remedy is to apply
to the county court OF Iron County,
See Is, p! 16; sec. 1S-to equalize
the assessment roll.
1t has been asserted to mein sew
eral instances that the property in
Salt Lake County is appraised higher
than in any other county of the ter
ritory. Bat this is only an
assertion which may or may not
be true. An assertion is not
proof. II is therefore not proven that
the property either in Cedar City or
in Salt Lake County is assessed to
high. Ny opinion on that matter
would not be worth the paper it
would take to write it.
State and territorial boards of
equalization OF assessment rolls or
taxes, in common, are attended with
great expense. They ought to be
created only when in the opinion Of
the Legislature the good to be de-
rived will overbalsnce the cost and
Of the establishment and the
Of its duties.
On this point l will hazard the
opinion that even though it could be
by proof that the property
in Cedar City and in Salt Lake
County is assessed toe high, yet it is
better 10 bear it two years more than
to add, at this session OF the Legisla.
ture, that feature 10 the revenue act.
Since the last session Of our Legisla-
ture three tax cases have been before
the courts. The counsel engaged in
them were myself, my son ZeTa,
Messrs. Rosborough & Merritt, Mar
shall & Royle, r. N. Bsskin, and
& Mcbride, all of whom,
unless myself and son constitute ex-
ceptions, are thorough scIutinizers of
aw. In these suits our tax law of
The last session stood the test, yet
small defects were discovered. These
defects, however, did not go to the
vitality OF the act. They are such as
an easily be remedied by the Legis- |
AZURE, with the approval of all. Some
If these are referred to by Mr.. Hey
bourne, of Cedar City, and Mr.. Mer-
lam, of Sanpete County.
see by my letter of the 23d inst., |
stated l wrote to all the city re-
orders a letter, OF which the one
printed was a copy. l wish LOW
o correct that statement in |
his. The letters l wrote to the city |
ecorders was addressed to them az
UGH, and the postscript contained the
equest that if you or the city counsel
AVE discovered, etc.
10 this part of the territory 1 knew
10 officers in charge OF the business
lad discovered defects in the act, as
his lettsr freely shows but as 1 en-.
ertained the opinion that this tsrri-
DRY is unity, and the subdivisions,
fractional parts Of that unit. III
wanted to LEAN, as l had q right to
earn, how it worked in the remote
'arts of the territory, from those beet
with it practically. Prac-
ice is better than theory.
Yours Truly, q. Snow.