The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-08-20
AN INTERESTING TURN.
Formal Complaint Filed by Tax
payers Last Evening.
ABLE ARGUMENTS MADE,
The Boar d of Equalization Apparently
Much Impressed.
a Final Decision on the Petition for a
Twenty-Five Per Cent. Reduction Will
Be Rendered Tomorrow -Attor-
ney nlurphy's Opinion.


| The most interesting and important
session of the city and county board of
equalization was that held last night for
the purpose OF hearing County Attorney
Murphy's opinion on the petition for
reduction of % per cent, and to hear the
arguments of G. o. Whittemore and
| titions.
COUNTY ATTORNEY MURPHY's OPINION.
County Attorney Murphy's opinion
was first read. 1t is as follows:
To the County Court of Salt Lake
GENTLEMEN:-You have referred to me
a petition signed by numerous tax pay
ers, the prayer of which is 'sthat some
means be devised by your honorable body
by which the taxes to be paid in the city
and county be reduced % per cent"
In recent opinion, have cited to you
the statutes which contain all your
powers over the assessment roll. (The
statute which was published in yester-
days HERALD is here given). One OBJ
vlous objection to your making such
reduction as is asked is the fact that I'M
der chapter %, section 4. of the laws of
1892, 'sAll property in the territory shall
be listed and assessed as owned and val
ued on the first Monday of March at IL
O'Clock m. of the year in which the
assessment is made.'' Therefore, if you
possessed any power to make general
reduction or raise in valuations, it would
be necessary that it should appear that
the assessed values were too high or too
low as Of the first Monday in March.
Values as they existed on that day are by
But the petition does not allege that
property is assessed at more than 1t was
worth that day; it is based on the fact
that
PROPERTY HAS DEPRECATED
in the last three months.
But there are other objections. The
statutes governing your action do not
specifically or expressly vest you with
power to raise or lower either the valua-
ton of ell property in the county, or of
any classes of property in the county. 1t
was held, indeed, under the law as it ex-
listed prior to 1892, that the Salt Lake City
council had power to make such change
for the purpose of city taxation as to the
whole of class of property. But the
power of the city council in the premises
was expressed in terms quite different
from those used in the statutes which pre-
scribe your powers.
The section of the statute providing for
the appearance of any person feeling
aggrieved by the assessment to ask for an
Equalization is quoted, and the attorney
continues: pee
This last clause, by grammatical con-
struction and punctuation, is distinct from
what precedes it and vested in the council
greater and more general revisory power
over the assessment troll than the power
to raise or lower the value of individual
pieces OF property. The fact that
THE LEGISLATURE
used no such sweeping and comprehen-
sive language in creating the powers OF
the county boards seems fair evidence of
an intention to withhold these ccmpre-
hensive general powers from the county
boards. But as to the city council, it was
never decided that they had power to
raise or lower the valuation of all prop
erty on the city roll. The decision was
that they might equalize between differ
ent classes of property.
am of the opinion That the language
OF the statutes governing your action,
when considered merely in relation to the
tIon' and to equalization within the
county, and to the equalization of indi-
vidual assessments so as to make the val
uation of each piece of real or personal
property conform to the established
standard by which property in general
in the county has been assessed.
/ But there-is another consideration
WHICH SEEMS CONCLUSIVE.
The act of 1892 (chapter 23) created a
territorial board of equalization. This
board is given power to assess certain
kinds of property, railroads, telegraph
lines, etc. Section provides ''said
board is authorized to change the assessed
value of any kind or class of property in
any county in the territory, and may
raise or lower the value there
OF, when it shall appear necessary
to make said values conform
to law. It may raise or lower the entire
assessed value of any county, 1t is
provided in section that 'no county as
SCISSOR shall have the power to change any
assessment or valuation so made I'm case
of railroads and telegraph property etc., J
by said board. Section provides: ''No
county court or county board of equaliza-
ton shall have the power to change for
purposes of territorial taxation any as
sessment or valuation fixed by said terri
torial board, or to remit or abate any tax
, due or which would become due to the
territory of Utah on such assessment or
valuation.
This power to ssraise or lower the
entire assessed value of any
county, is undoubtedly exclusive.
lit is reposed solely in the
I
the territorial board to equalize as be-
tween the counties and if all property in
one county is undervalued or overvalued
to raise or lower the whole assessment SO
as to make it conform to the standard
prevailing in the territory at large. To
, lower the whole county tax is not county
equalization, it is territorial equalization.
The county board
HAS NO POWER
to look beyond the limits of the county
: | it is confined to the county roll before it.
For the county board to raise the whole
valuation is not to equallze at all; it is
therefore beyond it's powers as ssa board
OF equalization.'
The consequences of assuming that
both bodies have such powers is absurd.
If they have concurrent powers and
t should entertain opposite views as to the
county valuation one claiming that it
, should be raised and the other that it
should be lowered, it would simply result
in race between the two bodies, each
striving to make it's order first, so as to
GUST the other of Jurisdiction. And to as
sumo that the county board may act first,
subject to confirmation or revision by
the territorial board, is, first, to assume
II that the latter will neglect its public
: duties, not acting when it should act,
+ and, second, to read into the statutes pro-
, visions which the legislature has not seen
fit to insert.
must be given by the territorial board of
equalization, and the petitioners should
! be recommended to request hearing be-
fore that body.
Other reasons might be adduced to
show that you cannot legally make a re-
duction on the whole county valuation,
but these set forth seem to be sufficient.