The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1898-06-28


which reads as follows
The board has power, after giving
notice in such manner as II may by
rule presci ibe TO increase or over any
assessment contained in the assessment
book, so as 90 equRlize the assessment
OF the property contained therein, and
make the assessment conform To the
true value OF such property in money.
has been referred 10 by counsel for the
defendants, and by mpaTis0n With
subdivt ion . of section -, reterr ng to
the powers Of the state board, which
reads; "At such NEE ings TO equal ze
I've valuation OF the taxable property
OF the several counties In this for
the purpose OF taxation and TO that
end, under such m es OF notice to the
coun v auditor OF the unity Affect
thereby. as 1t may prescribe, TO in
CT ease or lower any as essment con-
t.ired in the assessment book, and
make the assessment conform TO the
tue value in money Cf the property
assessed"
IL will therefore be observed that
the statutory authorization is, in the
first instance, directory 10 the board OF
county commissioners TO increase or
lower aty "a sessment contained in the
assessment book, $50 as TO make the
ass sessmcnt conform to the true value
OF such proper ty in money" and that
the s'ate board Of equal cation Is eN-
pressly DIRE I, q TO increase or lower
any sssessmt MT conta ined in the assess.
ment book, so as MT only to equAlize
the assessment Of property contained
therein, but TO make the assessment
conform TO the true value In money"
OF the property assessed and these
boards are therefore expressly Rutho
lied not only TO equa ize, but a so to
add To the value OF ary property cen
tanned in the assessment rolls or books,
and are expressly by the statute Of
Utah yen the power TO assess and
value as well as equalize, and the
supreme court OF that state, in render
| ing the decision in State vs. Thomas,
simply expire sed the plain words Of
the statute Of that state, which, in
terms too ain To bear expectation,
| expressly directs these boards TO be-
come assessing b ards.
There" said the Judge (holding up
long envelope covered with authori-
ies) lis a list OF authorities upon
which stand. The supreme court OF
Ohio, in Cham mberlain vs. city Of Cleve-
land, "a Ohio, 55i; OF Iowa In two
cases Royce VS. Jenney, so Iowa, G70;
Harney VS. Board. "a Iowa, 2O3-the
supreme court of Wisconsin, in Kelly
VS.. Carson, If Wis 3; the supreme
court OF Nebraska, in Kittle VS.. Sher-
win, l. Neb., rs, " N W. Rep. SOL
the supren court OF Indiana, City OF
indianapolis VS.. Sturdevant, "a Ind.
3ai; the supreme court Of Oregon. in
| chat 80 kfauVft Maui
cation Co. VS.. Wasco county, Oregon,
206: the supreme court OF California, in
Pattea VS.. Green, l3 Cal, 800; People
vs. Reynolds, % Cal, 49, and Wells
Fargo Co. VS.. state board OF equalizN-
tion, 90 Cal, 1874; the supreme court OF
Colo ado, in Pc pie VS.. Lathrop, 3 Col.
42s; the supreme court Of Nj, souri,. in
Paul VS.. Railroad Co., 4 Dill, IS; Z 4
supreme court of Montana, in state VS.
state board OF equaliz tion, 40 Pac
Rep 2G6; the supreme court OF II inois
in Kimball vs.. Trust Co, 80 ILL.,, GIL
Scannon VS.. city OF Chicago, "a l /. 200
aud Law VS.. People, 81 H., 3s5; the
supreme cou;t OF Idaho, in Orr VS.
state b ard OF equalization, 20 Pac
Rep 400, and all law writers citing
these very cases, drew the inferenc,
which is drawn in tn case ef Gray VS.
Stiles that these boards OF equaliza
ii n, being charged with no Other
power than that of cquallz ng from tn,
assessment rolls, cannot increase the
aggregate valuation OF property, They
have no power 10 change the value OF
property as ascertained from the as
sessment rolls from the various coun
lies, except by such addi ions or sub
fractions as are incident TO the calcu
lations which are made for the purpos,
of equaizing, viii eretaining as closely
as possib e, the aggregate b IS Of tax
alton az made by the local assessors
And so the text books declare.
Desty on Taxation, p. igG
Burrough on Taxation at page 235
And Judge Cooley in his work OF
taxation At page AIS says these tribu
nails are the mere creatures OF the stat
ute, and must look to IL for all thei
powers, and refers 10 many OF tn
ca, es which we have followed in era,
VS.. Stiles for his authority.
All the authorities draw that yer.
inference.
So also the same Interpretation /
made IN 20 American and English en-
eyclopedia Of law, p 2i7.
, II may be stated TO you that thes
! cases do not bear upon the question
, but say, and stake roy reputation a
: Judge and as lawyer, aud involt
! the learning and the industry OF tn
! bar OF this territory, and / challeng
y contradiction. The bar should inform
, itself upon the natter just de erm
nation should be had II might indee
never come II might indeed be tina
when this matter goes 10 the Suprem
Court Of the United States, that th
- | United States Supreme Court may az
, ply that rule OF Interpretation whic
= usually leaves 10 the Supreme Court q
/. the Territory the Interpretation Of II
own local statut S. II 80, so be II
O But do not believe IL, and | say no'
that this court has no power TO do thi
. thing, and that in doing IL, II has az
>. dertAken TO sanction that act whic
a has raised the total valuation OF th
s property in this Territory from tweI
q ty-eight millions 20 thirty-nine million
:. OF dollars, and 10 raise the possible II
- debtedness Of the various municipal
a ties Of this Territory by an increase Z
/. one million five hundred thousand do
!, lars; aud do not think that there
i. any justification for IL on the part
a the Territorial Board OF Equalization
= except 70 avoid the federal statute
- July 3Oth, 1856, whereby congress- tr.
4, ing u avoid the constant Efforts OF II
. authorities In the Territories 10 owe