Sacramento daily record-union., 1881-07-09

placed on the same basis OF valuation. That II mas
caused the several assessments to correspond to be
like in amount and degree as compared with each
other and so far as the several taxpayers IN the
county are concerned, have placed them on the |
same footing of equality by rating the property OF
each at the same proportion OF value were the
taxing power to be exercised for local pur-
poses alone, no further action would De
necessary. All the property being assessed
in the same proportion to its value, 1t would
be immaterial whether it was assessed above
below its value for in either case the rate OF TAX
alton would be apportioned rule OF equality as
between the several taxpayers. But a State tax
must be collected upon the same roll, and long
experience has shown that the Assessors OF the di-
ferent counties and the Boards OF Equallzauon
thereof would adopt different standards OF valu.
alton in different counties that in one county AL
the real property would be assessed at its full casn
value while in another such property would be
assessed at seventyve per cent. OF Its cash Vslue
The differences would cause the State TAX 10 Iai
unsqualy upon the taxpayers in different counties
To remedy this evil the State Board OF Equalization
was established When the assessment books OF
the several counties completed, the State Board
ascertains whether the same standard mas Deen
adopted in each county, ana if 1t has not been IL
then reduces the assessments to the same standard
as between counties by adding to or deducting from
the valuation of l, the real estate; z, improve
menes; and 3, the personal propertY-as CLASS,
such will produce uniformity as near as
such uniformity is practical.
COUNTY BOARDS HAVE THE POWER TO INCREASE
OR LOWER ASSESSMENTS.
We maintain that it is clear that the Legislature
did intend to deprive the County Boards OF the
power to increase or lower the assessment OF such
railroad property is assessed by the State Board
but that has expressly given to the county boarus
such power. Nor could the Legislature have done
otherwise The County Boards are not the Great
ures OF the Legislature. They were not formed 10
register the edict OF any other Board or power:
They play more important part in the system of
local government. They the creations OF the
people acting in their original capacity. Ihelr
grant of power is found in the Constitution, and
the Legislature could no more deprive the Board OF
any such power than the Board could deprive the
Legislature of power upon it conferred. The Con
stitution (Art KILL. Sec 81 authorizes and empoW-
ers the County Board to increase or lower the en-.
tire assessment roll, or any assessment contained
therein" The language is broad and unquallned
1t goes to every assessment the assessment roll.
The question to who made the assessment cuts no
figure in the matter. 1t is with all assessments the
power deals. 1t is not limited by the mode or man
ner of making the assessment.
What we ask the Board to do is to make the as
ses ment complained of conform to the standard OF
valuation fixed by the Assessor for other real prop
erty in the county of Monterey. 1t may be OBJ
jected that, if the ysrious County Boards do the
same thing, the result will be that the railroad will
be valued in one county at $4,000 per mile, and in
another at 81 900 per mile But this constitutes no
valid objection to the exercise OF the power Let
us assume that in the exercise OF this power, you
should determine that valuation OF $4,000 per
mile would be valuation in proportion to what
other real property is valued at for the purpose OF
taxation in this county. and that IN the county OF
Santa Clara the Board should determine that valua
ton of 81 900 per mile would be avaluationin proper
tion to the value put upon other real property In
that county Would it not be clear that il we were
to stop at this, the railroad company would in each
county pay tax in proportion to the value of its
property ?-that the owners OF real estate in each
county would, as to each other, pay tax in exact
proportion to the property owned by each? If the
tax was confined to local purposes the mandate OF
the Constitution, that all property should be
taxed in proportion to lis value, would be
obeyed. Each County Board would have
performed its duty to equaliZe, to cause
valuations to correspond to be alike in amount and
degree as compared with each other.
THE INTEREST OF ALL REAL ESTATE OWNERS.
The rice in the assessments as they would
thus stand would be one which does not af-
feet the railroad alone, but is one which, when
1t comes to State tax alone, does affect
every owner of real estate in the respective
counties whether that real estate consists Of rail
road or other property The equality between such
owners in Santa Clara county would be complete, and
SO as between owners in Monterey county but the
owners in Santa Clara county, including the railroad
company, would be compelled to pay State tax
out Of proportion to that paid by the owners in
Monterey county. The law does not assume that
such inequalities will not exist after the action OF
the raj County Boards II such Boards desired
to prevent such inequalities they have not the means
to do so. They cannot compare the roll OF one
county with that of another, and bring values in
each to the same standard (see Wells Fargo q Co.
vs.. State Board Of Equalizaton). On the contrary,
all experience proves that just such inequalities
must in the very nature OF things exist alter the
action of the several County Boards. The law as
sumes that such inequalities will exist, and to
edy this has created State b ard Of Equalization,
with power to comDare the several assess
ment rolls and bring all valuations to
| the same standard, so that the tax payers
in he at
tax in proportion to the value of their respective
| properties. In the case put, such equality would
| be attained by increasing the values upon all the
real property OF Monterey county, or by decreas-
ing the values upon such property in the county Of
Placer. Ii you grant this application, equality will
be attained and justice done. Ii you refuse it, and
it be true, as alleged that the assessment Of the rail
road property IN TINS county, as made by the State
Board, is per cent. higher than other real prop
ery is assessed for does it follow that the rail-
ro2d company must, for both State and county pur-
poses, pay tax - per cent. greater upon its real
property than other owners OF real property IN this
county are compelled to payi II was 10 prevent
| this inequality between taxpayers in the same
county that the Constitution called the County
Boards OF Equalization into existence and conferred
upon them the power TO equaize assessments as be-
| tween individuals. Say the Supreme Court OF this
State, in the case of Wells, Fargo & Co. vs. the
State Beard OF Equalization September lS, 1850
The County Boards OF the respective counties are,
in the body Of the section (Section 8, Article KILL
State Coustitution) "giyen the power TO equalize
the valuation Of the taxable property in he county
that is to say, to compare the individual assess.
ments upon the assessment roll one with another,
and make them equal" And in the same case the
Court say that eminently wise TO confer this
power upon the County Boards, the members of
which moe familiar with the relatIye values of
property in their own county than could be the
memb ers of the state Board. Dealing with a like
question the Supreme Court Of Illinois Chicago and
Northwestern Railway Company VS.. Boone County,
A ILL., 242l say 1t cannot be that one portion of
the taxpayers in county, owning taxable property
shall be required to pay in proportion to
Is value no matter how that may be ascertained
than another portion in the county >
Such discrimination is condemned not only by the
Constitution but by the indignant, yet less just
judgment OF an honest people"
DIFFERING VALUATIONS.
In the case, dealing with the fact that sepa-
rate action in different counties may produce differ
ent valuations the Court say " 1t appears from
the record that appellants made return to McHenry
county OF their personal property and track running
through a portion Of that county. 1t
appears appellants returned the valuation Of their
track therein at So 600 per mile, and the argument
was 'inasmuch as the track in Boone county is in
as good repair and capable OF doing the game pro-
pOrtionate amount Of business that part OF it
running through McHenry county therefore the
value must be the same, and IL should be assessed
accordingly. This, in our judgment, does not fol-
low. Neither county furnished rule for
the other so that the return of valuation in Nc
Henry county was wholly irrelevant to the question
then before the Court. The appellants were taxed,
it is presumed, in McHenry county on the same ba-
sis of valuation that individuals in that county were
taxed and this may have been vastly different from
that adopted by the Assessors in Boone county"
Says Judge Cooley Cooley on Taxation, 266): can
reasonable presumptions in construction should favor
Justice and right" 1t is too clear for argument
that equality in taxation is just and right. The
Constitution has provided for other system, but
has established system the foundation OF which Is
some form or other has been part of every taxing
system adopted in this country, and by alone
taxation in proportion to values. be apprOXimated.
If you do not possess the power to equalize the
assessments made by the State Board, then that
power is not by the Constitution vested IN any
tribunal /; but power has been conferred upon tbs
State Board by the wanton and unjust exercise OF
which the most vital interest may be rendered value
less Said the Supreme Court OF Illinois IA Illinois,
234 in response to the assertion that as 10 railroad
property the power TO assess without review was