Custer chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, Black Hills, D.T. [S.D.]) 1880-1890, 1888-02-04
Reply to Churchill.

| more elaborate than conclusive so fal
as the matter Of vindicating the action
of the commissioners in lowering the
assessed valuation of the Sheidley Cattle
company is concerned. The CHRONICLE
cannot accept the inferred theory that
the cattle belonging to this, or any other
| company, can drift beyond the limit oi
| taxation, and takes the view that their
action was wholly unauthorized by the
statute quoted, which is believed to
have been grossly misinterpreted and
sadly misunderstood
CUSTER. FEBRUARY |, 1883.
EDITOR CHRONICLE In your issue OF
January 2Sth last appears letter signed
| by DR.. Churchill, of Hermosa, in which
he makes some rather serious charges
! against the county commissioners
| Charges that it would be we'll for him to
as publicly retract, as he has publicly
made. His letter is too long to quote in
this connection, but presumng that
| most Of your readers are familiar with
lis contents, will only state here for
| the Information of those who may not
being Influenced by the use of money
the property of the Sheidley Cattle
Company at our last session. Also that
we were guilty of partiality, in that we
refused to lower the Doctors assessed
valuation, on the sworn testimony of
himself accompanied by invoice of his
stock, showing that his valuation had
been raised unjustly. In answer to the
first charge will only say we have our
remedy against the Doctor, unless he
can substantiate the charge. In the
other, as TO pariaiity, the public may
judge us after this, our explanation,
and right here it will be proper to say,
that ! was not a member of the board
last July when they were sitting as
equalizers, but have been advised by
some of the commissioners who we're
members at that time, of the grounds
upon which they based their action in
raising the assessed valuation. That, in
reference TO the Sheidley Cattle Com
pany, was based upon the following
statute:
hen any personal property is sit
uated and kept in any unorganized
county Of this territory, then such prop
erty shall be subject to taxation in the
nearest organized county thereto, and
shall be listed and assessed by the as
SCISSOR of said nearest organized county !;
and when said unOrganlZed county
borders upon two or more organized
counties, then said property shall be as
scsScd and taxed in that organized coun-
ty having the greatest extent Of con
tiguous boundary line"
Now, it appears perfectly plain that
the above statute does not apply TO the
territory wherein the great bulk Of the
Sheidley Companys cattle range, (tle
Indian reservati0n} but of course does
apply TO all unOrganiged counties other
than Indian Reservations. That being
the ca e, Custer county could have no
jurisdiction, and of course could not en-
force the collection of any tax in that
territory. | think ] will not be con
tradicted when ! say that orr legal ad-
wiser, and all the commissioners held
this view of the case. Having disposed
in this view, of all property belonging
to the company outside of Custer county,
We then endeavored to ascertain, ac-
cording to the best information obtain
able, what property the company did
ton, and arrived at the amount as stated
in the published proceedings Of the
January session. AS to the case of
Doctor Churchill, there was no question
Of jurisdiction his property was all in
Custer county, the only questions were,
had he been unjustly raised 10y the
board Of equalization and if SO, had
the commissioners. when not sitting as
board Of equalizers, any right to con-
slider his case? Our legal adviser at
that time was of the opinion that the
board had no right to consider his case
when not sitting as a board Ofequaiza-
ton but after more careful investigation;
Of the subject reversed that opinion, and
concluded that the commissioners had a
right at all time, in any regular session,
to correct any error that they may have
made at a previous session. This view
| believe to be correct, although | am
aware it is not held by some who are
disposed to criticise the actions Of the
commissioners in that respect, and
claim that all matters that have been
passed upon once by them, cannot be
re-opened. Ifa taxpayer has been un-
Justly assessed and he failed to appear
before the board of equalization, he has
no redress only through the courts, they
say. Now, | don't think the law con
templates that every taxpayer in the
county is expected to appear before the
board to see whether his tax list has
been changed by the assessor after it
left his hands, or whether the COM
missioners are going to jump at a con-
clusion or untrustworthy evidence that
a taxpayer has a great deal more prop
erty than appears on his assessment roll.
Most of them are satisfied with their as
sessment when they sign the roll they
have no grievance that they know of
until theycome to pay their taxes, then
they find they have been wrongfully
raised by the assessor, or board Of equal
ization. Now, suppose the amount ls
only fifteen or twenty dollars, what re-
dress has the taxpayer if he is compelled
10 take his case into court He would
be compelled to fee lawyer, say ten or
fifteen dollars, five or ten dollars more
10 get his case into court, docketing, &c,
&c. So where does his redress come in?
If the commissioners cannot give it to
him, the county virtually becomes a
party to robbing him ont Of the amount
Of the error. But excuse the dlgression.
and | will return TO the consideration Of
Doctor Churchiil's case. After Mr..
Frye had reversed his opinion, it left
the Doctors case again open, but as he
L. 1-Es e 4 IL. r.. l.