Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-07-29
Is Held 10 ba Valid by Tho Safe
Supreme Court
IN THE SALT LAKE COUNTY CASE
Court saysu woutd he Unreasonable
To Rsauire Property owners TO
Make Application.

The Supreme court handed down an
opinion today In the case OF Salt Lake
CITY VS. Francis Armstrong, L.. Il. Hall
and Jos. Rawltns, county commission.
ers OF Salt Lahe county, sitting as a
board OF equalization. involving the
question OF the boards right to pass a
resolution reducing the taxable prop.
eriy OF Salt Lake CITY, and deciding
that Judge Norrell erred In sunulling
the boards order. The opinion was
delivered by Chief Justice Zane aud
concurred in by Justicss Bartch and
Miner.
Tbs City Council, in order TO raise
extra revenue, amounting to s282,5O0,
to conduct the city affairs. dur
ing the year 1895, fixed the tax rate
at seves mills on the dollar. The bnnrd
Of equalization on the 18th OF July
pnsseu resolution reducing taxation
loriy per cent IN the district lgirR
between the north line Of Ninth South
street ana the north line OF Twelfth
South street, mi twenty per cent on
property In that portion OF the city
lying south OF the north line OF Third
South street, and north OF the porth
line Of Ninth South street, and OF all
that portion lying wastiot First West
street an u north oil Third South street.
The city attorney claimed that the
reduction amounted to S5,000,000 on
the valuation, anu that II would DO In
sum iieDt TO pay the necessary ex-
peuses OF the city for at least a year.
The question to be determined was,
Had the board the power 10
pses the resolution and make the re-
duction. Judge Norrell decided that
It did not, when the board took an
appeal TO the Supreme Court.
Judge Mckay took the position that
the law did not give the board the au-
tnority to reduce the valuation by
general order, but that II should have
been done upon tho written application
OF the owners OF the real estate.
The court In It's opinion today saye,
that section l l OF nrticlel8 OF the Utah
Constitution, makes IL q duty of the
beard to auJusI and equallze the valu-
alton OF botn real and personal proper
" within their respective couuties,
without prescribing the mode TO Abe
adopted.
Tue court also takes notice OF the
fact that IA number Of deputy assessors
are employed by the county assessor,
and OF thelr liberality to differ In their
estimates rs to the value OF property,
which makes II all the more necessary
that some general authority should be
delegated with power to equalizs mai
lers.
Section l5, chspter l3l, OF the Ses.
sion Laws OF 1886, the court CONSTITUTES
MS meaning that the boaru may raise
or lower the assessed valuation OF any
class OF property in both city and
county.
Section az aud chapter I29 Of the
same laws, coDtsnued by Judge Nc.
Kay TO mean thst the party affected
must ME written appli cation Tor n
reduction. This the court holds refers
TO reductions upon the application Of
individuals, and not reductions made
upon classes Of property within certain
localities uesignateu or described by
the board.
ut would be uureasonsble,D the
court says. ITO require several thou.
sand people, properly owners in Iarge
district, each To make written apph-
cato n for such reduction. When the
excessive valuation applies to an en-
tire district, tue board may make the
reduction as We have indicated, with
out written application being made"
Chisi Justice Zane. after stating
that the court below erred in hoiuing
that tue board exceeded lis authority
in passing tue resOl button and aunullinR
II, reverses the judgment and remanus
tne cause.