The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-08-26
THAT COUNTY TAX QUESTION.


very nationally, construed the law defin-
ing their powers as having reference only
to the territorial taxes. OF course they
would have to except the assessments of
railroads, because that is specially vested
In that board both for territorial and
county purposes. But as to general
county taxes they have no power to act.
The question arises. suppose the Salt
Lake county court had equalized the taxes
between the city and rural assessments as
petitioned, or made general reduction
of the whole assessment so far as it
affected city and county taxes only, would
not the reduction stand? The answer is,
yes, so far as the Territorial Board of
Equalization holds or has exercised any
authority. Cache, Weber and Summit
county courts made such a reduction but
went beyond their Jurisdiction so as to
cover the territorial as well as tie county
taxes. The territorial board simply re-
versed that action as it affected the terri
torial taxes, leaving the reduction for
county taxes intact.
The attitude of our morning contem-
poTary on this matter is ludicrous but
characteristic. Swallowing blndly the
learned opinions of lawyers on the side of
the county court, it dogmatically asserted
that the county board of equalization had
no power to make a general reduction of
the county assessment, but that this
power was vested ia the territorial board
alone. A contrary view being expressed
by THE HERALD, all kinds of ridicule
1---- -<~l,A 81
temporary with "a quality of mind'
to be pitied and lampooned. But the Sc
quel shows that THE HERALD was right.
That Is:
'sThe court, sitting as a board of equal
ization under the law of 1890 as amended
by the law of 1892, has the power to
'equalize the assessment roll of the whole
county, including the general taxes of
cities of the first and second class situated
in The county, the mayor or member of
the city council sitting with the board.
ssThat power is not taken from them
by the act in relation to the territorial
board of equalization, which is endowed
with different powers, and the two bodies
need not conflict. -
The position taken by the Tribune. di-
vested of feeble attempts to ridlcule the
foregoing was that:
''This power of general raising and
lowering is vested alone in the Territor-
ial Board of Equalization.
eve therefore believe that the effort TO
have the assessment roll reduced in the
way first suggested must be given up az
wanting law to support it, aud that the
reductions heretofore made in several of
the counties are null and void, and will
be wholly disregarded by the Territorial
Board of Equalization.
"Would the Territorial Board of EQUAL
ization in whom, it appears, rests the sole
power to raise or lower the assessment
roll as whole, be likely TO give favora
bic consideration to a proposition for
such reduction as was asked Of the
County court? We think that is not at
all likely, etc. ''-T Tribune, august 20.
'sThere is no probability that the Court
would uphold County court in doing the
like, because the law doesn't vest that
power in the County courts but in the
Territorial Board of Equalization. %
Tribune, august 2I.
Now see how its tune changes! August
25 it says editorially:
s'The Board held in brief, that it was
their function to deal with the counties
solely in their relation to Territorial rev.
enue, and that it was not gwen them to
deal with county or city valuations as
such, or the variations between the
county and any city that may lie within
its borders. 1t is strong view to take,
and the logic of the situation sustains it,
On the same date, in reporting the ac-
ton OF the board, it adds:
The Board has no jurisdiction as far as
the assessment OF cities or counties are
concerned as to the assessment for city
and county taxes.
Its powers are limited to the equaliZa-
ton OF taxes between the several counties
as far as the revenue for Territorial pur-
poses is concerned. This tax is confined
to three mills for Territorial school;'
and two mills for Territorial purposes.
Just compare the Tribune opinion of the
10th and 21st with its opinion on the 18th
inst. How about the 'sdeadly parallel''
again? It is the most shifting, jerky.
jumping jack that disports itself in the
ranks OF journalism, and has the greatest
impudence in essaying to ridicule that
which 1t cannot comprehend In the col
umns of its contemporaries.
The county court in declining to make
the reduction desired in this city, very
adroitly lodged the question OF power,
and settled it on the ground of expediency.
The money is all wanted, no doubt. But
SO far as the authority is in question, this
county had just as much power as the
boards of equalization in Cache, Weber
and Summit, or there is no meaning in
language and no force in law