The Weiser signal. [volume] (Weiser, Idaho) 1890-1904, 1891-12-03


a board Of equalization and certified |
a corrected roll to the auditor. But
the stand the county auditor has
taken; and his reasons therefor
raises some new questions, and places
the matter in very different light.
1t is a clear proposition, to begin
with that the State board is not a
court of original Jurisdiction to
decide questions of taxation. A
railroad company, and its property,
stands precisely in the same attitude,
as to the duties and responsibilities
of taxation, that any private citizen
does. The railroad companies op
Grating in Bingham county were
assessed at a certain valuation, just
as the property of individuals was
assessed. They were duly notified
according to law, as were all others
subject to taxation, to appear before
the proper tribunal, at certain
time and place. to enter their COM
plant and file their pleadings. This
they failed to do, and having ignored
proper summons from the court of
first resort, they are barred, and
estopped from seeking relief in the
court of last resort. They were not
properly before the (State board),
and hence that body had no juris
diction of the matters at issue.
Assuming, however, that the State
board had the right to take cognizance
OF the question Of assessment, as
presented to it by the railroad
companies, the question then turns
upon the validity of its actions,
under the law from which it derived
its authority. We have endeavored
to carefully study the phraseology O
, this law, since this questions hai
been rc-opened in its present shape
and in order to make our deduction
! plain, will quote from the law itself
O Sec. 5. ~ y The board shall procee
=, to equalize the valuation of real and pei
sonal property amongst the several countie
L and towns in the following manner:
d. First-They shall add to the aggregat
s valuation of real and personal propert
of each county which they believe to
s valued below its proper valuation sue
percentage in zach case as will raise Il
% same to its proper valuation.
1t Second-They shall deduct from u
= aggregate valuation of real and person
" property of each county which th'
- believe to be valued above its prop
valuation such percentage in each case
- will reduce the same TO its prop
p valuation
e. 1t will be plainly apparent to al
DC one who has followed the board,
such feeble explanations it h
v attempted to make, that it proceed
ly entirely outside the pale Of the Ii
az above quoted. Instead of adding
re or deducting from the aggrega
en- valuation of the railroad property,
ur properly certified TO it, a certain |
of centage, they entirely ignored I'll
IN valuation and made such speci
is valuations, in separate and distii
is cases as to the board or the memb
in, thereof seemed proper. To illustr'
pie the U. and N. railroad in Bingh'
hi county, 1875 miles, was assessed
nd So, 900 per mile, amounting to s. 48
md 600. Had the board taken
aggregate valuation and raise
lowered it certain per centage
action would have been legal
:. legitimate. But the board did not
this. 1t made a new valuation
90 81, 900 per mile on a portion Of
=. line, and IS, 600 per mile on anot
portion of it. This means of arriv
at conclusion will not stand
H.. scrutiny of legal investigation.
a., assume an analogous case, le
suppose that Mr.. Brown owned |
head of cattle in the south end OF
county. and Mr.. Smith owned l
head in the north end OF equal ave-
value. If the board had ignored
a.. assessment as returned by the cot
assessor and made an entirely
nm and independent valuation, pla
/. \, Dir. Browns cattle at sl2, and
sda Sn,il ~ lstRaPt ylll any
syss esas.sa sss sa.4 Sc q ID: fas1s saa
H. M-I