Idaho semi-weekly world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1875-1908, 1891-11-06
: srArE BOARD OF EQUALIxArrox,

4
from lengthy editorial in the MaIa,
Entefprlse--the County Commission
ers of Bingham county will test n.
validity Of the action of the Stat,
Board OF Equalization. The Enter
PRISE contends that the Board passee
the bounds laid down by the Cons,i
tuition; that they did not equalize as
sessments, but actually assessed prop
er'y; that they have no power te
raise or lower the aggregate assess.
ment Of the property Of the State
With railroad assessment this could
be done with equal justice. Taking
the Enterprises logic-as an illus.
tration suppose the highest assess
ment in any county was 10000 pc.
mile, the lowest $4,000 per mile and
the aggregate s2,So0,0O0 on four hun.
dred miles, then the Board of Equal.
ization would have authority to equal.
ize the assessment of all the counties
and order the assessment of railroads
in the State at $1,000 per mile. The
assessment of 400 miles being 81, ,800,.
200, the average per mile would be
$1,000, a'd by fixing the assessment
at those figures the total would be
neither raised nor lowered, taking
the aggregate, but the assessment in
some counties would be raised. and
in Others lowered. This W ,uld be all
right in the assessment of railroads,
every mile OF road being about equal
to every other mile throughout the
State, in value, but fixed valuation
on other forms of property, personal
and real, would come far from being
correct, all round-in manv cases be-
ing too high or too low. Lands are
not all of the same value per acre in
all sections, and it is the same with
nearly all other kinds Of property.
There is great difference in the
value of stock per head. We do not
pretend to know whether the Board
has exceeded its authority. They
value land according to its situate n
and productiveness and convenience,
which is about the cnly way in which
to get anywhere near its value. The
assessment of railroads, telephone and
telegraph lines have value per mile
that varies but little if any in any
of the counties. To equalizs
the assessment on such property is
'asy enough. On other forms
property State Board, no matte
now sincere and painstaking th,
members of that Board may be, no
row strong their desire to do justice
20 all sections, they will inevitably
all. Take the assessment of land;
1t is fixed at the same value per acre
all over the State portion will pay
taxes on more than it is worth and
the remaining portioH on less than its
value. This is so plain that it needs
no eiucidation. On the other hand a
State Board is incompetent to- fix a
correct value on land in different por-
tions of the State, as 1t is impossible
for them to be thoroughly acquainted
with all the conditions in each county
that affect values. If they did it
would be impossible for them to justly
equalize, for all property of a certain
class. even in one county, is not Of
the same value. The Assessors and
County Commissioners are better
judges of the value of property in
their respective counties than State
Board could possibly be. The duties
Of the State Board ought to be limited
by law, and the law clearly drawn.
Whether it is the duty of this State
Board to equalize or assess, they canno,
come as near doing equal justice all
round as the Assessors aud Commls-
sioners of the several counties. 1t
was plain before the meeting OF the
State Board of Equalization that it
would be target for poisoned ar
rows OF partisan spleen, as well as for
the righteous wrath of those who
would consider that their property
was put too high, or property of 9TH
ers too low. This natural consequence
could not have been avoided by any
action the Board could have taken.
The fault has been in not making
some constitutional limit to the de-
ties of this board. Their duties, how
ever, were before them, and they I'M
doubtedly knew beforehand that,
however much their equalization la
bors might be governed by an hon
es, purpose and spirit of justice and
fairness. they would inevitably be