Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-15
THE CITY TAX CASE.
The Legal Arguments Made Yesterday
Afternoon aud The Case Submltied.

After the NEWS had gone TO press on
Tuesday afternoon, the case Of Hiram
johnson W. the CITY Council Of Salt
Lake came up Mr.. Nnrlan appeared fur
the plaintiff and Mr.. J. L.. Rawliu- Tor
the defendant. This sctlou was brought
by the plainilTto have the city coun.
ell restrained from making the pro.
posei reduction Of 20 per cent. on the
valuation Of real estate on the ground
that such action would be an unjust
discrimination against the owners Of
personal property.
Attorney Variau male n brief argl.
ment In opening, AMI Attorney IIaw.
lins replied that the return to the writ
Of cortiorari showed that upward Of
$50 complaints against the valuation Of
real estate had been filed with the
city council. Amer considering these,
MIR. Young offered n rcsolu-
ton making n reduction Of ~ pert
cent. on tealestatc. lie contcDdci that
THIS simply brought lne valuation
down to falr cash valuation, and was
not such discrimination against
another class Of taxpayers as would
disturb the uniformity Of the ASSESS.
fneut The council, after Investigation,
concluded that the $50 who complain
Cd were assessed too high, but no
higher. relatively, than all olhere OF
the came class. This being true, the
question was what could the board do
10 az the taxes and at the same
time pfsserve the uniformity u the
AsstSsmeni. The only action 10 take
was that which hal been taken. There
was nothing Ia the record 10 show that
the board had not acted Ia the spirit
" the law aud within tho power con.
fsfred upon them by II. IL was csscn.
tial that the board should exercise n
reyisory power over the assessor, In
order that Justice might bu done.
MIR. Rawlins cited a long list Of
authorities In support of his position In
closing.
Attorney Varian answered that the
record must afllirmatively show the
Jurisdiction. When the board acted
upou the complaints before Il, there
was nothing more for II 20 10. IL
stopped la ~ legitimate work and en-.
ttsd uton the domain " bumcombe,
ia. with n series Of "whereases" TO.
solved that 20 per cent, Of the tax on
realty should be taken OF. Where
was thrir authority for tbisG The
hoard had Jurisdiction Of the a.scss-
mcnt roll. for ons purpose only, which
was To hear coupltinls. Where was
there any evidence that the property
was assessed 20 per cent. 10 highl
The law contemplated NIL invurti-
cation ~ valuations, aud In the no.
sencr u any fraudulent Interest on the
pArt Of tho Essossor the courts could
not interfere. The board was really u
,ontt " review, but II was not 10 pass
up,u such cases. II there were no
=, mplalnts and no appeals, there was
nolhin: Tor It 10 act spOn. II never
was n.cndcd 10 confer upon the body
the power II making assessments.
That would make II u court Of original
instead Of appellate Jurisdiction. Its
POWERS were put Ia motion by com.
plaint and its action must be- In the
nature OF review.
Alter counsel on either slide had
g te numerous additional authorities,
tho court took the matter under advise.
m.nt.
The above report was unavOldably
crowded out Of our yesterdays issue. ]