Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1883-05-27
THE HOWL WILL END.
Curtain Rung Down on the Reas-
sessment Act.
The Board Agrees With the Attorney-Gen-
efaI that Il Cannot Exceed the Aggre-
gate Valuation in equalizing
The Full Opinion.

and gone up from various papers through
out the State will end and change TO some
thing else when this article meets the eyes
Of the writers thereof. The State Board OF
Public Words sitting as Board Of Equsli.
cation of the State assessment, has decided
that it has not the legal right to increase
county valuations beyond the aggregate
reported by the commissioners. On Fri
day Mr.. John D. Anderson, representing
Nicholas county, raised the question that
| the law did not give the Board the
| authority to increase the valuation il
the equalization process, beyond tn asere.
gate returned by the commissioners. The
Board referred the question to the Attorney
| General. for WIissen opinion. After 9
| thorough examination of the statute and
the authorities bearing on the question,
Gen. Watts yesterday delivered his opinion,
sustaining Mr.. Alderson's question. The
Bosrd unanimously accepted the opinion
and the trouble is ended. The full text Of
the opinion is as follows:
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA.
OFFICE or ATTORNEY GENERAL,
WHEELING, May 25, 1888.
To the Board of Public Works, Sitting as q
Board Of Equd, :dtion:
The question referred by you to me for
my written opinion, on yesterday, by res.
olution, To wit: Can the Board of Pub.
lie Works, sitting as Board of Equaliza-
tiQn, 50 correct the reassessment made
under the provisions of chapter 80, Acts
1852, as to increase the gross aggregate
valuation of the lands in this State as as
certained by the Commissioners of the diff
fara iStr in tho yariOns tiao
should they find it necessary to a proper
correction and equalization OF the said re-
assessment between the different counties
i'll the SIate?" has received my careful con-
sideratiOn, and / have given to the au-
thorities bearing on the subject, such ex-
animation as deemed the importance of
the subject to demand. The language of
section 10, Acts 1882, as amended by Sec
ton TO- Acts 1888, is as follows: Section
TO-"
Acts 1883 chapter y, section 10. "The
Board Of Public Works shall be Board OF
Equalization to correct and equalize the
re.assessment made between the counties,
if il 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 as may be pre-
scented to them. and shall increase or re.
duce the average value OF the real
estate in such county according to
the evidence so taken, and any
other evidence which may come to
tLeil 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, 1t will be
observed, is not so specific as TO the powers
and duties Of the Board as is the language
of the Acts OF 1873, under which the Com
mlSsioners of Equalization then acted, in
combining themselves to the gross aggregate
valuation as fixed by the assessment next
preceding nor is II so specific as the Ian
guage Of the Acts of 1861, under which the
Board of Equalization then actel.
Indeed the only difficulty which the
question presents grows out of the appa.
rent 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 referred to.
Under statute of Colorado General
Laws, sec. 4g-3, page 75G.) the Supreme
Court of that State held that 1.-THE State
Board of Equalization may for the purpose
Of adjusting and equalizing increase the
aggregate valuation of one county and de-
crease that ofanother, but ii has no powerto
increase the aggregate valuation OF proper
clerks OF the several counties"
In that case l think the holding OF the
Colorado court was right. While the lam
guage of the statute and of the constitution
of Colorado is not identical with our own,
yet the constitution of that State requires
uniformity OF taxation as does ours and the
decision rendered by tie Colorado court
rests upon the same principles which are
involved in construction OF our statute.
l,nth RtatntpS framed Tor
the purpose of equalization; one
in defining the duties OF the
Board uses the terms adjust and equal
ize," while the other employs the words
correct" and "equalize.
To Iualize las used in both statutes)
means, according to Worcester, TO make
equal" or make even.' ITO adjust as
late" "to adapt" Ito make conformable'
while to correct as used by US, according
TO the same photographer is ito free from
faults or errors ITO amend Ito set
right, ITO reform" ito rectify."
Thus an inequality may be set right. rec
tl6ed, or corrected, and hence there is no
real difference of meaning between the
words correct" rs used in our statutes,
and adjust as employed in that of Col
oEsdo.
This view is confirmed by the history OF
our statute. By reference to the Journal
and Bills of the House of Delegates oil 1882,
it appears that the Bill, as introduced 3y
Mr.. Grantham, and reported by Mr.. Leon:
ard, provided as follows: "If the Board Of
Public Works, Whose duty it shall be to
examine the said assessment have good
reason to believe that the assessments
made are too low, or that they are too low
in some counties or districts, il shall be
the duty of the Governor 10 appoint
Board of Equalization" etc. cit
shall be the duty Of said Board to meet at
the Capitol. land they all
proceed to examine all of sad books and
make such alteration as they may deem
lust etc, see pages lS6 and lS7 OF said
Journal.
II must here be remarked that this pro-
vision of the Bill limited the action
OF the Board to assessments too
low" as whole "Or in some counties
in either of which events unlimit-
ed power was given to the Board to deal
with assessments appearing too low, and to
mske such alterations thereof as by them
seemed just.
But the Legislature refused to pass the
bill so framed, granting this unlimited
power to the Board, and on motion OF Mr..
Ferguson, the bill was amended by strik-
ing out the whole of the foregoing provi.
SlOu' anu tue ItSlsLdNuEc pdSSci III Ilcu
thereof the law as it now stands. The
striking ont OF the language referred to was
done upon a call Of the ayes and noes OF
the House and after full elaboration.
If the legislature had intended to confer
this power on the Board of Equalization, it
is hard to conceive why they should have
stricken ont language. which did so, une-
quivocally, and insert in lieu thereof Ian
guage which, under the construction OF
the courts confines them TO correction
and equalization of the average values be-
tween counties and districts.
Without goinginto other questions raised
by discussion before the Board, and which
deem it unnecessary 10 decide, can not
in the light of authority. and the history
of this Act, doubt, and am therefore of the
opinion, that the sole object OF the legIsla-
ture was to secure equality and uniformi-
ty of taxation, as required by our constitu-
tion,. and without authorizing this Board
to exceed the gross aggregate valuation as
sscertained by the commissioners OF the
several assessment districts.
Very respectfully, your obi Servant.
Az