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

among the tax payers IN proportion TO
the value Of their property. Its action
may extend to any locality or particular
district of the county 1t has the right
TO determine the value of property, and,
ton. may raise the valuation OF one dis
trict and lower that of another, even
though by such acton the total valuation
of the property OF the county may be
increased or decreased.
APPLIES TO STATE BOARD ALSO.
What has been said respecting county
boards. applies with equal force to the
state board. except that it may not en-
crOach upon the domain of the county
board in an attempt TO adjust and equll-
lie the valuation Of property within the
county. With this exception II VIII pc
observed that the constitutional duties
and powers of the state and county
boards contained in this section are pre-
cisely the same. Where the same du.W is
imposed and the same power exists. there
the same result may be expected as in
tended, from the performance of such
duty. and the exercise of such power.
How, then. can it be maintained that
the state board can not increase the total
valuation of the state, when necessary
for the purpose of equalization. while
the county board may for such purpose
increase the total valuation of the county,
even enough ii may thereby increase the
aggregate valuation of tho state2
1t is true. the action of the board is
confined to counties as component parts
Of the state, While the action OF the
county board extends directly to the val
l2ation Of the property of the individuals
of the county, but the plain dutSi of each
is to adjust and equalZe the valuation 50
as 10 make it uniform and equal on all
4 tenaole property, according to its value
in money. suppose the property in all
the counties OF the state except one mad
been assessed by the assessors and county
boards. at its actual cash value. as re-
Quired hy the contribution and that the
property in the one was assessed at only
1 half Its cash value. how could the state
board. in accordance with sworn duty, ad-
lust and eoualiZe the valuation 50 that
all taxable property in the state would
be assessed at its value in money, if the
board had no power to raise the aggre-
gate ValUatiOn2
To state the proposition is sufficient to
demonstrate the impracticability of the
contention of the REALTORS. and the i'm
possibility OF a compliance with the re-
Quirements Of the constitution, the pro-
visions of which are mandatory and bind
ing equally upon the legislature, the
courts and all officers of the government
The courts have no power to override
these provisions. or explain away their
effect and operation by judicial cOnstruc-
ton. Whether the creation of a state
board Of equalization with such power
was a wise thing for our constitution
makers to do, or whether 1t constitutes
a board Of assessors does not concern US
Z II IS sufficient to say that the power eX-
! lists, and the legislature is to provide by
! law q uniform and equal rate of assess
nent and valuation of all the property
! in the state and, in addition to the
! state and county boards. shah provide the
means to ascertain the value of property
( in money. and prescribe regulations to
/ secure a just valuation for taxation.
/ The legislature may enact any law, re
/ specting the subject of taxation. not pre-
I vented by the constitution. Except as
4 limited by the constitution OF this state
/ or of the United States. its power is prac-
/ Tiually absolute and its enactnents ara
void ono when in conflict witaJ or pre-
1 vented by the paramount law.
4 Cooley on Const. LIN. PIP. go, POI.
THE STATUTORY ENACTMENTS.
Having considered the above constitu-
tional PROVISIONS, it becomes important
now TO examine the statutory enactments,
so far as applicable to this case, to as
certain whether the state board in MAX
! ing the order complained of acted with
: in the jurisdiction and power conferred by
( the constitution and statutes.
Section ! of the revenue act c. 129. D.
( 429, Se,ss. Laws 1895. reads: "All property
( in this state, not exempt under The laws
! OF the United States. or under the con-
stitutlon of this state shall be taxed in
proportion to its value, as hereinafter
provided" Section .: All taxable prop
erty must be assessed at its fun cash
value Land and the improvements there
! on must be separately assessed"
AS wiz be observed, there is nothing in
either Of these sections of the statute
( which conflicts with the provisions OF
sections ? and 3 of the constitution. Under
section 5, all taxable property must be
assessed at its fun cash value but, as
we have seen. this is so under the con-
stltuuon, and as TO assessing land and
improvements separately. there IS moth
ing in the constitution to prevent it.
Section ], relating to county boards
which reads as follows; THE board has
power after giving notice IN suca manner
as Il may, by rule, prescribe. 20 increase
or lower and assessment contained II
tina assessment book, SO as 10 eQualizt
the assessment of the property contained
therein. and make the assessment con.
form TO the true value of such property
in money" has been referred to by
counsel for the defendants. by com
parisOn with subdivision o Of section 81
/ referring TO the powers Of the state board
wiaicn reads: "At such meetings Il
equal!ze she valuation of the taxabl,
property Of the several counties IN thi:
state for the purpose of taxation anC
10 that end, under such rules of NOTES
{ to the County, auditor o. <ne county at
fected thereby, as It may prescribe, TO in
crease or lower amy assessment con
! tained in the assessment book. 50 as L
I equaEze the assessment of the property
contained therein. and make the assess
ment conform 10 the tr-1= -Jaiue IN moael
I OF the property assessed.
i will be noticed that fhe power Il
( eqGalize and raise or lower - valuation
for the purposes of taxation - PRACTICALLY
the same in both provisions. and entirel!
! consistent Wlah the PROVISIONS of section
II, OF the constitution above quoted. Nont
Of the statutory pr0ViS.onS thus fa
considered. appear to conflict with tn
constitution, and hence ara valid.
HAS POWER TO RAISE OR LOWER
In Salt Lake City VS.. Armstrong. supra
this court held that the county board hat
such power as IS conferred by section Il
II this decision is right. as we think i
IS. It is difficult, upon examination of tn
I two provisions, TO DISCERN now siDli9e
power can be denied she state board
; Vase CO unwiSe pha manifest object 0
{ 2
enactments was an equitable apportion
msnt OF the burdels OF the g0Veoamne
among The several counties of The state
Evidently n pursuance OF tncS OpJecl
the state and county boards were pro
( Vided for in the constitution. SO as I
supervise The actions Of the county as
:. SCISSORS whose Offices are created by tn
/ statute and whose duty y IS 20 list an
value the properly IN the first Instance
While X is the sworn duty of these Of
; dcers TO value and assess all taXaol
I property equally and uniformly. at us fur
cash value. yet current history does no
, fan TO present the fact that odrougi
F mistake, careleSsneSs. or incOmpetency
) the groSseSt inequality frequently pre-
{ walls in valuations. and " .hout a powe
! lodged somewhere to adjus. md eQTaliz
: he valuations. not 9piy migh's great in
justice result, but also me constitutions
{ ( requirements Of uniform and equa
! rate Of assessment and taxation on a
properly in the state, might be rendere
5 4 nullQty-
Among the airhes'e acts of suprem
, power are tho assessment and collectio
Of taxes. They constitute contributes
! imposed by the government upon m
ue1ple for the service OF the lialte. j
, return the state affords protection t
: life, liberty and properly. Taxation
, founded IN necessity, for without reYenn
/ The state canaot exist, and as the process
) by which the properly Of the citizen ;
) taken IS of 4 somewhat summary char
: aeter, although quasi judicial it
Z highly Important than acts of officers
fixing the amount to be paid hy the in