Mohave County miner., 1884-07-20

lhSfariy-
As 10 the power Of the Board TO
compomiso With the railroad com
pany. Tue decisions of the several
states Of the Union are explicit ana
positive on the poin, that Boards Of
Supervisors. sitting as Boards OF
Equalization. cannot disturb the a..
SCISSORS valuation Of property given
in by him, unless a complaint is reg
ularly laid before them. that the val
nation is too low or too high.
IL was held IN the case OF the
People Va Reynolds, 2S Cal, 1U7, that
tAle fiing of com 2laiut was oeees
sary, in order to give the Board Of
Equalization jurisdiction TO Increase
! the valuation Of property beyond the
amount at which il had been assessed
iby the assessor; and this doctrine
was aifirred IN People VS. Flint,
80 Cal. go. In case OF People vs.
Goldtree, A Cal. 323. these decisions
were again affirmed. md the court
in this case held further, that the
appearance OF the parties, aud the
hearing Of testimony by the Board,
without giving the Board jarisdic
| tion by the filing Of complaint, did
not alter the case. The Board Dad
no Jurisdiction 10 alter the assessed
valuation without complaint, and
any act done without this prelimin
arg step being taken was VOID.
In the case Of People We Board OF
Supervisors Of City and County OF
San Francis Al Cal. Gl3. the Board
acting as es Board Of Equalization
cancelled 80 much OF the assessment
that tine revenue OF the State wonld
have beet reduced one huBdred md
twonIy thousand dCllars bad not tie
supreme Court declared that its act
WAS in excess Of aud without and
"oeyond the jurisdiction oi tbs said
Board Of Supervisors. aud Is void
'.in so far as by the said order Of the
said Board caaeele1, or assumed 10
cancel, The ssiA assessment 50 borne
upon said assessment roll and set
aside the several assessments Tf6re
said. IS hereby reversed, annulled,
'sahd set aside
| Again in case Of / VI. 5. S. Co. ys
Board OF Supervisors, 80 Cal. 2s2, il
was decided '.iba, the Board had no
"power to strIae cut from an BsseSs-
'.Den., made by tie assessor, prop
'erty assessed by him"
| Last year the Atlantic and Pacific
railroad company did not even ap-
pear before tie BoaTd u Equaliza-
ion, much less Iils complaint that
Tie assessnr had placed too high a
vaiastion upon IT'S property. Aud
set the Board rsniitea large por
IuDn Of its taxes, against the rights o!
9.erY taxpayer 10 the county. This
same B5aEd woald have lsugh@d 20
&C IRA any taxpayer ot the county
woo wo,lId haze asked such 4 thing
10 hs dSuc
! Ia wilson W Sulter county, AZ
! Cal 81. citing and approving People
Va Whyier, II Cat 35I, the Supreme
I Court said;
! "Aa orier 8bieh RENTS the taxes
-ap7u any property within the dis
~trici, causes TIC taxation 20 b. nj
equal, and j. virtually 40 exemp
zion Of such property from taxation !
"and Il tho order RENTS part Of
''ihe TAX on sncb property, the TO.
: sal, Is tie ssrue. il differing only IN
"leerea. and must bs held
: "aull and yGid."
Our own law says: The Board Of
: Equaliz 4iiOn shall have power to
Determine al COMPLAINTS made 10 re
gard 10 the assessed value OF any
property Compiled laws, Sec 2o2ll. +"
We ask again. was sny complaint
} made last year by the railroad. or
} tor il, that the assessed value Of its
property was too bigbi What right
p 4. en-, nnder the light Of the decis-
ions above cited, had the Board to
y nee it's taxes, mrch less remit
+ them7 The Board called it com
; promise, but il the Board has no
? right b. remit. where is there any
authority for compromised
Viii he same thing be done this
!. year WI the Board compromise
, sgsin! A5 We have shown, the Board
5 can only entertain u written com.
r plant, filed by the railroad company
K stating thst its taxes are too high
= and showing reasons why they are
r TOO high and that they should be cut
( uowD. before the Board has aDy
? power whatever b act. Tue prOoi
e produced by the raiircad company
:. before the Board must he ofthe sans
I a n