The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-10-03

Justice Bartch ana, so lar as the result
is concerned, concurred in by Chief Jus
tice Zane and Justice Miner in the tax
assessment increase case of the state
of Utah, ex rel, j. a. Cunningham ct
al. rs. the state board Of equalization.
Their honors hold that the state board
OF equalization has power to raise OF
lower the valuation. but that in this
particular case the board did not adopt
the right method to make the raise,
and the order raising the assessment
OF Salt Lake county property Is, there
fore, declared to be void and Judgment
for the REALTORS ordered entered
The extreme time prescribed by
statute in which the state board Of
equalization shall sit in any year haV-
ing expired the assessment as made by
the assessor must stand for this year,
so the professors have gained their
point thus far.
THE OPINION.
The full text Of the opinion is as fol-
lows:
This is an original application in this
cOurl for a W.T. of certi0rdri - com
mand the stale board of equalization 10
certify and return 10 the supreme court
All the proceedings concerning a certain
order Of the board. whereby the assess
meat Of the property IL Salt Lake county
Tor The year 1875, was TO be increased. TAe
writ was issued. and the board hled its
answer. and demurred To the petition. A
demurrer To the answer was also flied.
ThereupOn the case was argued and pre-
scented ON its merits. and viii likewise
be considered
The most important question 10 be de-
termined is whether the state board of
equalization has the power TO 50 raise
the total valuation Of the property of
any county IN the state as 10 increase
the aggregate valuation of all the eoun-
Ties Of the state, as returned, TO the
state board, by the several county as
SCISSORS and county boards of equaliza-
tom
On behalf of the REALTORS, ii is contended
that the. powers OF ule state board are
limited. by provisions OF the constitution
and IF STATUTES to an adjustment and
equalization Of the fytal valuation OF
che several counties as fixed by the
assessors and county boards. and G'asH
It has no power 10 increase the aggregate
r. Vsiu2tton OF the property of the state
50 placed upon ii.
For the defendant board it is insisted
that ii has power 70 raise or lower the
total valuation of the property OF the
state so as to render the assessment equal
and uniform in the several counties. and
make it conform 70 the true value, in
n9ney Of the property assessed
The provisions Of she constitution, 50
far as material 10 the decision Of this
case, are, as follows:
In section ?, article Il, it is provided
that, al property in the state, not
exempt uuder the laws of the United
States. or under Ulis constitution, shall
be taxed in proportion 10 its vaIue. to
be ascertalned as provided by law.
Under THIS provision all taxable property
must be assessed and taxed in proper
ton 10 its value. I. viii be noticed that
"Valus' IS here referred TO in a com
paratiye manner AND is 10 be 'aseeCtalDed
as provided By law. IT, sord proper
Won" doubtless mas reference TO sameness
or hke1esS in value of property that is,
all property must be taxed az the same
relative value. If this provision were TO
BE- considered by itself ii might be con-
tended VITA some force. that the legiS-
lat0Te had power 10 provide that all prop
eTty should be assessed al basis less
than its full value. and this might still
be considered as in proportion 10 its
value" The real intent. however. Of the
tr5glers of the constitution IS made more
manifest IN Sect.5l :, arGcle -, which
contains this language:
MUST BE UNIFORM AND EQUAL.
The legislature shan provide by law
a uniform and equal rake of assessment
and taxation ON ali property in the
stale. according 10 its value in money.
and shall prescribe by general law s1ch
regulations as shall secure q just Yalua-
ton for taxation Of all property; 50 THAI
every person and corporation snail pay
tax ln proposition TO the value OF ais,
her, or it's property.
This provision IS closely related to che
one in section !. and directs the legtsla-
Iure nor o0ly 70 provide uniform and
equal rate OF assessment and taxation, SO
that every subject owning property Slall
pay the same rate Of tax as every other
such subject. but also declares that all
property shall be assessed at a basis
which shali be according 10 its value in
II Is evident that the term. according
TO its value in money. means that all
property shall be valued. for the pur-
poses of assessment, as near as is
reasonably practicable. al its fun cash
value In other words. that the valuation
for assessment and taxation shah be as
near as reasonably practicable, equal u
the cash price Tor which the property
valued would sell in open market. for
this is doubtless she correct test Of the
value Of property. The manifest inten-
ton Is THAI All taxable property shall
bear its just proportion Of the burdens Of
taxation
These two sections of the constitution
harmonic with each other, and by
reading and considering eheIn together. q
becomes clear that all taxable property
Witsrll this state must be assessed and
taxed on a valuation fixed at its actual
cash value or as near such Value as Is
reasonably practicable
DUTY OF THE BOARD.
IN order It would seem, to guard
against unjust valuations which m.gli
ss1n IRON ~ nS5r1; '@ a55 e ana Is
IL taxation, 81 was provided IL
section il Of the same article as follows
Until otherwise provided by law, there
shall be state beard of equalization
consisting OF the governor. state auditor
state treasurer. secretary of state and at
t0rney general; also. IN each county oi
this state a county hoard of equalization
consisting Of the board Of county com
uizsionerecf said county. The duty o.
the state board of equalization shall b.
80 adjust and equalize the valuation o!
she real and personal property among tbs
several counties of the state The dut!
of the county hoard of equalization saal
be 10 adjust and eQU1liZe the VALUATION o
the real and personal property within
their respective counties Each boart
shall also perform such other duties a.
may be prescribed by law"
By this section are created the st-tl
and county boards Of equalization. ana
their duties defined. Under its provision.
the controversy in this case mainly arose
The provisions relating 70 county bc'a-d
was before us ia the case of Salt Lake
City VS.. Armstrong 10 Pee. Il. 6il. ana We
there held that the county board 81
equalization might raise or lower th'
valuation Of any class Of properly in th'
county or Of real estate N any particular
locality for the purpose of adjustment
and equalization of values
Mr. Chief Justice zane. delivering ths
opinion OF the court, and in reference L
section II. said: The last section make
ii the duty OF the county board 10 ad
just and eqpalize the valuation of the
real and personal properly within thei,
respective counties, without prescribing