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

assessors and county boards Of eQualiza
ton are in closer proximity 20 the prop
efty assessed, and mat therefore they afs
better qualified and more able 20 judge o.
and estimate rs value and, hence Gl9
aggregate valuation Of g = state, as fixed
by them, should be mai and control. s-lll
the trainers of c1le constitution in their
wisdom nave decreed otherwise, and we
are bound by that decree.
We are therefore OF t1e opinion that
the state board mas jurlStieticA ~ tAe
premises, and authority if necessary LOT
the purpose OF eaual 2au0n, either 70
.-..se or lower the 1Otal valuation OF the
property OF any county, hXed By tAe
county board and assessor, even enough IL
may, by Such acton raise or rover lAe
aggregate valuation of all the counties IN
Uae S-9lue.
Counsel for the realtors have cited, ana
rely on the cases OF people vs.. La.t(lf2p,
We mus. decl.ae to follow those
dec s.ons, because, as may be seen, by
examination and comparison, the pro-
visions Of the constltul ons and laws of
the states of Colorado and Montana,
respecting the subject of revenue ana
taxation" are essen tally and materially
different from the provisions on Inc
same subject. contained in the coOStltu-
ton and laws of UtaA.
The next material question IS whether
the state board, IN making we S5Ne' ~, ~
controversy, regularly pursued us
authority?
Section So of the revenue act. in refer
ence TO uhe state board, provides: ''When,
after q general investigation by the
board, the properly is found TO De
assessed ab9Ve or below its full cash
value, the board may, without notice, 50
determine. and must add 10 or osaucI
from the valuation OIL. Inc real
estate 2. ImproY ernents On su2h real
estate g. The personal property, eX-
cept money. SucA per cen-uGn respectively
ss is sufficient TO raise or reduce 1T TO its
full cash vale"
NO CONFLICT.
the defendant board that this section IS
in excess OF c1nSc Iutt0glal authority ard
therefore void. and reference Is made 10
the provision of section 2, of the cohstl-
tuition. herein before considered as the
one with which 1t is in conflict.
We are unable 10 see IN wAat fespec-
section So, = in conflict witn that pro-
vision of the constitution, which we nave
construed in connection with section d.
of that instrument, as providing Tor the
assessment of all taxable property at
its fun cash value. Section 50, pr0NldeS
likewise The constitution is silent as 20
the classification of taxable property Tor
the purposes of taxation Section 49,
provides for such class lcafion, ana now
the Valuation may be increased or de-
duced. This was a proper eAsre-se 81
| const ltlt.onaI limitation, and the sectlo0l
IS valid Notwithstanding rlat II eNceplS
| money from its operation 1ne exception
does not invalidate the statute because
in respect 10 taxation money is the con-
stltutional standard of all values. me
valuation of all property shall be "ac-
cordlng TO its value in money IS the
I mandate of the fundamental law,
! 1t IS insisted for the REALTORS, that the
/ order in question, not only Goes no% COZ
| form to sect!A S., abve quoted, but a .tso
| thar in rs operation, 1T would increase re
! valuation on money listed on 0he assess
ment roll and that 1t is therefore IN
The order is general in its. terms
4 and does not Specifically refer to
! each of the classes of property men
/ toned and designated in the, statrte.
/ The state board has only su NC j
movers as are conferred upon IT by tAe
constitution and statutes, and It's out,es
must be performed in accordance Wllh
their requirements
/ DIDN'T TAKE THE RIGHT WAY
We think the provisions of section 50,
res1,ecfing the classification of taxable
property are mandatory SuG1 nelng the
! case it was the duty OF the board, When
/ il found that the property OF Sait lla!-e
/ county was assessed too low, BEFORE haE-
ing any order. to determine now Inucn
/ the valuation on the real estate ougnt ~
! he RAISED how much that Of the improve
nnenfs thereon, and how much that OF the
personal property, respectively, SO as -
( make all the valuations CONFORM 20 e i
! constitutional standard, and then to MAKE
| an order accordingly. The statute ho'
| having been pursued the order was de
! fective. 1t was also defective because
( Included money in its operation. II GEAR
: Nv c1n not be held operative as TO money
for as appears from the record edcL
( dollar of the realtors, on the aSSssstnelH
; roll IS valued at a dollar, and Wher
! roonery is SO valued no board or officer
can add five per centum or any PEI
eentum to it. This is SO under the con
stitution which makes money the staAu-
ard OF valuation for AN taxable properly
The value OF all property however, Ss-i
not be determined IN the same way BE
cause of its dissimilarity, the process o!
which tghe Judgment is formed must vary
and probably as to all property eXcep
MONEY. perfect equality in valuations anC
assessment is unatoainable, owing 10 th'
faHibihty of the human ludgInen;t. pr n,
value of q dollar may be determined D!
ascertaining that II IS what II pufpoII
to be.
A DOLLAR IS a DOLLAR.
Porter ct al VS.. R. r. l. and st. L. R.
CO. rs ii. 594.
Is a dollar, and therefore to value ant
assess it at more than dollar ca135,9
be a valuation and assessment, "accoTulh!
to its value in money. TINS Delng Sc
the court will take notice, as matter o
law. that money cannot be assessed 10
more than its legal value. Hence, IRON
the nature of Things. the state board ca
NOT cSange the valuation of money on IN
assessment roll already assessed at II
legal value, and thereby make II ceaS
to conform to the mandate of the consu
u People VS.. Dunn. So Cal. S2S.
1t may be that the failure to e--cep
money. of itself might not render IN
order void. but when that fact IS con
sidered in connection with the furthe
fact as shown by the record in dhi
case. that the acton of the board did nc
conform to the statute. the order can nc
he u.,held as q prOner exercise OF eu
fhority. and is therefore void.
Having reached this conclusion. 1t
unnecessary to discuss anu other cues
ton presented in this case.
,Indgment must be entered in favor c
the REALTORS that the order, in question
4 be set aside.
We concur:
Concurs in the Judgment.
MINER j..
, Concurs.