The Weiser signal. [volume] (Weiser, Idaho) 1890-1904, 1891-12-17


that the taxes had been paid after the
assessment roll had been altered by
the state board and that the moneys
paid the Bingham county assessor
had been duly receipted for. He
modestly refrained from expressing
an opinion as to whether Gould's
railroad would pay an additional
hundred thousand or SO, but said the
company had no desire to evade any
law.
Attorney Stewart could not be found
last night so his next step in the prem
ises could not be ascertained.
Further information regarding Che
ruling of the court are given in
later issue as follows
The text of the decision of the sup
rene court in the case of Sample Orr
VS.. the state board OF equalization
was made public yesterday. The de-
cision is lengthy document cover
ing twenty-five pages of typewriter
matter, but its essential features, in
their bearing upon the merits Of the
case, do not differ from the summary
given in yesterdays Statesman. The
first six pages are devoted to a state
ment of the allegations Of the petition
and to consideration of the right of
the petitioner to maintain such an
action, the court basing an affirmative
decision upon the the California case
of Maxwell VS. the board of supervis-
ors of Stanislaus county, in which
the same point was ruled upon by the
California supreme court.
1t is next shown that "There is no
method of appeal pointed out by the
statue to secure a review of the action
of said board" the court continuing
"The writ of certiorari is the proper
and the only means of bringing such
action before this court for review. "
The proceedings of the board of
equalization are quoted, with the let
ter of the auditor notifying the county
auditor Of the changes made. The
court reviews the duties of county
boards Of equalization, showing that
they have no authority to adjust val
uations as between counties, and stat
ing that the state board had assumed
to rectify inequalities of assessment
by the counties of classes of prop
erty.
The act defining the powers and
duties of the board is. next quoted
down to and including section 5.
Continuing, the court say:
''Thc first sentence of the above
statute necessary to consider is tht
last clause of the fourth paragraph
of section 2, which is-The boarC
shall have the power to raise or dim
inish the valuation of the real ant
persona, property amongst the sever
: al counties and towns in the follow
ing manner to witt"
''First-They shall add to the az
gregate valuation of real and per
sonal property Of each county whicl
they believe to1be valued below it
. proper valuation such percentage i
each case as will raise the same to it
proper valuation.
"Second-They shall deduct fror
the aggregate valuation of real an
personal property of each count
. which they believe to be valued abov
its proper valuation such percentag
in each case as will reduce the sam
: to its proper valuation. "
"No power whatever is given t
} the board to raise or diminish an
class or classes of property by an
percentage or in any manner whatey
er, no power is given it to assess. c
fix the value of any kind Of property
no power is given the board to fix th
Q value of any railroad, and no powC
" is given by said statute to SAID boar
. to declare any portion Of any railwa
P" branch line or main line.
- at is not intended by this opinio
= to intimate that the value of railroa
> property as fixed by the state boar
: of equalization is too high or to
:" low, We believe that railroad prof
crty, like all other property, shoul
be valued at its actual cash value lii
all other property its capacity
Us produce profit should be taken in
l consideration
'o sit is profitless to multiply wore
III to show what the board is not en-
III powered to do; what they can do m;
L be given in few words. They IN;
ye odd to or ds1,,at from tho aUOreua