The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1891-12-02

Gupllcdle Will tuC NoQuly AASsi ~
and took bis receipt therefor.
The return is equivalent to a de-
ulurrer to the petition, and in the ar gu
nent all its allegations were treated as
true. The jurisdiction Of the Court
was challenged, and besides this, the
only other and leading question ra-eed
and argued was, whether the Comp
sroller-General has the authority thus
to raise the assessed valuation OF per-
sonal property Of a banking corpora
ton.
After the argument held both issues
in favor of the petitioner, and ordered
the writ to issue, giving orally, my
reasons briefly for so holding, and re-
serving until later day time in which
to file a written opinion. l proceed
now to do so with all possible dispatch,
because the matter is Of moment to the
Taxpayer and to the State, and ought
at this particular juncture to be hearC
by the Supreme Court before the tine
for collection of taxes expires and while
the Legislature is in session.
First, then, as to the power or the
Court TO grant the writ, and whether
or not the writ Of mandamus IS the ap-
propriate remedy: .,,
-AA1fgafssit gafss it for granted that it will
readily be conceded that to compel an
officer of the county to do and perform
a merely ministerial act plainly re-
uuired of him by law, the writ OF man
dalnus is the appropriate remedy, and
the Court of Common Pleas has Jurls-
diction to grant it, and in proper case
will do so, unless expressly prohibited
by statute. This speedy and etlcaclous
remedy will not be denied the tax
payers by the courts unless compelled
to withhold it by express statutory en-
actnlent. Counsel for the respondent
contended that such prohibition IS
contained in Sections 26S and 269 Of the
General Statutes.
1t lis sufficient answer to this argu-
meus to say that these sections have
reference to the collection Of an alleged
illegal tax, and the Courts are forbid
den to interfere with the action OF the
tax collector by injunction, mandamus
or any other extraordinary proceeding
or writ. The taxpayer is compelled
first to pay under protest and then to
proceed to recover back by suit as
specially directed in the Act. But the
present petitioner is not seeking to in
terfere with the duties Of the tax col
lector, but only asks to have the Au-
ditor place in the hands Of the Treas
urer the lawful valuation of his prop
ertv, and not that which is unlawful.
The petitioping bank desires to avoid
being placed in the dilemma provided
for in Sections 26S and 269, and to that
end prays the Court to compel the Au-
ditor to deliver to the Treasurer the
correct and lawful assessment of its
property as fixed by the only Boards
having jurisdiction in assessing 1T:
The fact is that Sections 26S and 269
render the present proceeding not only
vitality important, out essentially neces-
sary to the taxpayer, because it is the
only possible mode by which the tax
payer can save himself from the hard
ordeal prescribed by those severe en-
actments.
I hold, therefore, that the Court has
full power to issue the writ in this pro-
ceediug and that there is no other
remedy known to the law by WHICH
the wrong herein complained Of can
be redressed so speedily and so ade-
quately.
The next question is as to the author
ity of the Comptroller General to direct
the Auditor to raise the valuation of
personal property after it has been coz
sidered, scrutinized and finally fixed
by the Auditor, the Township Assess
ors and the County Board of Equaliza-
ton. He certainly has no such au-
thority under the Statutes of the State.
The Auditor and the said Boards are
the only persons having authority to
assess for taxation the personal prop
erty of the people and such corpora
tions as banks, and with this valuation
of personal property no officer Of the
State can interfere. With their valua-
ton Of real estate no one can Interfere
except the State Board of Equalization.
AS we'll might the Comptroller
General, by his mandate to the County
Auditor, raise tue valuation of all the
real estate Of county, or the real estate
of an individual or individuals, after
the final action of the State Board of
Equalization, as to raise the valuation
Of personal property after the final
action of the County Board. In no
Act nor Section of an Act OF the Leg
islature can such power be FOUL con-
ferred or attempted to be conferred
upon him. His control and super
vision over County Auditors does not
60 beyond furnishing them with proper
books, blanks, forms, instructions as TO
their general duties and the like; but
not to the valuation and assessment OF
property. Over the action of Township
Assessors and County and State Boards
of Equalization, in so far as their valu-
alton of property is concerned, he mas
no control and from their Judgment
there is no ~a,7 20 him nor TO any
one else. II Is fipal, and the Auditor
must accept it, and place the same On
his tax list and duplicate. If he :
fuses he can be compelled to do so by
the writ of mandamus. It is his plain,
statutory duty. 1t would be alarming
to the taxpayers of the State if, after
property has been assessed 10y Boards
specially charged by law with that
duty, arv one man, be be Auditor OF
Comptroller-General, could, without
notice and without hearing, increase
arbitrarily such valuation. The same
law applies to The assessment OF the
individual citizen as to that Of bank
and the law is equally jealous OF the
rights of both, and no more eXactlns
in regard to the one than the other;
find, therefore, as matters of fact
that the allegations Of the petition are
true; and, as matter Of law, that tn
petitioner is entitled to the writ prayed
for; and for reasons given | signed th'
order Of NOv'r 18th instant.
J. II. HUDSON, Presiding Judge.
Nov. ., 1891.
Treble and Bass.
"Twinkie, twinkle, little star,
How | wonder what you are"