The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1883-05-30
Opinion Of AtIorney.G General
Watts.
sTATEor WEsTy IRarNIA, !.

by resolution, to.wiE "Can the
Board Of Public Works sitting as a
Board Of Equalization, so correct
the re.assessment made under the
provisions Of chapter 80, Acts Of
1882, as to increase the gross sggre-
gate valuation Of the lands in this
State as ascertained by the Com.
missioners Of the different assess,
ment districts in the various coun.
ties, should they End il necessary
to proper correction and equali-
zation Of the said re.assesamcnt be-
tween the different counties in this
state27 has received my careful
consideration, and / have given To
the authorities bearing on the sub.
ject, such examination as l deemed
the Importance of the SUBJECT to de.
mand. The language Of section 10,
Acts of 1882, as amended by section
10, Acts Of 1883, is as follows
"seclion 10, chapter u, Acts Of
1883. The Board Of public works
sball,be q board If equalization Ia
correct and eqnalize the re,assessl
ment made between the counties,
if it shall appear to them that the
average value Of the real estate in
any such county is either too high
or too low. The board shall hear
all such evidence US may be pre-.
scented to them, and shall increase
or reduce the average value Of the
real, estatein such county according
TO the evidence so taken, and any
other evidence which may come TO
their knowledge. When they shall
have completed their labors, they
shall report the same to the auditor
who shall certify the same to the
clerks Of the county courts"
The language of this statute, it
will be observed, is not so specific
as to the powers and duties of the
Board, as is the language of the
Acts of 1875, under which the Com.
misSioners of Equalization then
acted, in confirming themselves to
the gross aggregate valuation as
fixed by the assessment next pro.
ceeding, nor is it so specific as the
language Of the Acts Of 1867, under
which the Board Of Equalization
then acted.
Indeed the only difficulty which
the question presents, grows out Of
the apparent want Of care in the
employment of terms in the statute
itself. This difficulty is, however,
greatly removed by the history Of
the Act, which will be again re.
ferred to.
Under a statute Of Colorado Gen.
e.al Laws, sections 42-3, page 1867
the Supreme Court Of that State
held that "The State Board Of
Equalization may for the purpose
of adjusting and equalizing, in.
crease the aggregate valuation Of
one county and decrease that Of an
other, but it has no power to in
crease the aggregate valuation of
property above the valuations as
returned by the clerks OF the sever.
al counties"
In that case, I think the holding
Of the Colorado Court was clearly
right. While the language of the
statute and Of the constitution Of
Colorado is not identical with our
own, yet the constitution of that
State requires uniformity of taxa.
ton as does ours, and the decision
rendered by the Colorado court
rests upon the same principles
which are involved in the Construc.
tion Of our statute.
Both statutes are framed for the
purpose Of equalization, one in de.
iining the duties of the Board uses
the terms adjust" and "equalize"
while the other employs the words
Correct" and "equaliae."
To equalize (as used in both stat.
utes, means, according TO Worces.
ter, to make equal" TO make
even," to "adjust," as used in the
Colorado statutes is to CIRCULATE"
to adopt" to snake comfortable"
while to correct" as used by us,
according to the same lcxicograph.
er, is 10 free from faults" or Ger
rors," to "amend, ITO "set right" to
"reform," to "rectify."
Thus an inequality may be set
right, rectifed, or corrected, and
hence there is no real difference Of
meaning between the words "cor.
rect" as used in our statutes, and
adjust" as employed in that Of
Colorado.
This view is confirmed by the
history Of our statute. By refer.
oDoo M fho Iou.nnl al D:II RAJ