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


WALLACE VS. BUILEN
by Judge McAtee. dissenting BY
the C urtesy of my brethren. and by
reason OF the Importance Of the mat
ter, would like To say word in the
case OF Wallace VS. Builen, before the
case has gone out of sight and per-
haps into history. ] can never consent
10 Icy down "a principle or consent, to
the approval of an Interpretation Of
the law which | believe destroys the
fundamental rights Of citizens
The power Of taxation is the power
OF destruction IL must be exercised
with the profoundest care, and all the
courts and text-writers have uniformly
fully and firmly held that no power
shall be exercised 10 take the property
OF a citizen under the power OF taxa
tion, except unde express aud oxpli-
cit terms OF statutory authority.
In this case it is not necessary to say
much The whole matter has been
thoroughly examined in the opinion
fled in the ca e OF Gray VS.. stiles.
There are two broad features OF the
law governing taxation. One is valua-
tion, the other is equalization. The
Organic Act OF this Territory, as, in
deed, the constitution OF many Of the
states, perhaps all of them. provides
that taxation shall be upon The "true
value of the property, and the stat
utes OF this territory, expressing the
spirit OF the Organic Act. provides ex-
pressly and emphatically that proper
ty shall be aXed according to its "true
cash value and in providing the
method OF taxation the statutes ex-
pressly provide how that true cash
value shall be ascertained The earlier
articles OF the chapter upon revenue
provide the method by which the pro
perty shall be valued. The citizen
| and tax payer must swear TO his pro.
perty, and must swear TO it's value.
The assessor must swear to his return,
aud must swear to its value. lie dare
not prevaricate. II he doss, he Grim
inally offends. lie must make his re-
turn on the value of the property,
under oath under the apprehension
of criminal reprobation and punish
ment, and when the statutes have
thus expressly provided what the duty
of the taxpayer shall be, and what
the duty of the assessor shall be, and
the individusl assessments have been
returned by the Total assessors, TO the
township board, and the township
board has acted upon these individual
assessments, according to the method
prescribed in the statutes, the du Y
and functions and the power Of ascer-
tanning the cash value of the property
is complete. Nothing further can be
done In that direction. Beyond that
the board of county commissioners of
each county of the territory are charg-
ed with the function OF equaliling be.
tween the various townships, and be-
yond that STILL when the ascertain
rHent has been made, and the county
clerk in the discharge Of his duty, has
returned the county rolls 10 the audi
tor Of the territory, there remains,
under the explicit construction OF the
statute, but one duty for the board OF
equalization TO discharge That is the
duty, under the express language OF
the statute, OF equalization
No power is given TO the territorial
board, nor 10 the boards of county
commissioners, TO value property; nei.
ther by express terms, nor by any just
nj renee which can be drawn from
those terms. The mower is the power
OF equalizing alone. II is TO reduce to
an average, TO reduce TO common
standard, the valuations Of the various
counties as shown by the assessment
rolls sent up from the county clerks OF
the various counties. IL is 10 ascertain
the average and to equalize them, and
IL cannot be argued that because the
Organic Act provides that the property
OF the terri ory shall be valued accord
ing TO its true cash value for the pur.
pose OF taxation, and other provisions
have been made by statute for the as
sessment and taxation Of property aud
that inasmuch as IL has been ineffect
ually done, that therefore the power
exists in the equalizing board 10 20 on
and assume the authority TO value,
No such power exists. Neither has
any court, before the case Of Wallace
VS.. Bullen, declared that such power
existed. II was suggested in that cas-,
that the case OF Black VS. McGonigle
1903, Mo 1872, made such a determine
ton. II did not. And / challenge al
examination Of the case The statut,
of the State OF Missouri charged the
board OF equalization and the boarC
OF county commissioners not only with
the duty OF ascertaining the value o
the property, but expressly authorized
and directed them to do so, and Judg,
Black, in rendering the decision OF th'
supreme court in that case went M
further. The board Of county com
missioners were charged and author
ized, by the statutes OF Missouri, whil
exercising their duties of equalization
also TO ascertain the value OF property
That case does not affect the presen
Interpretation; does not aid In the in
depreciation OF our statute or our Or
ganic Act
But the Jurisprudence Of that stat
in another case, and 10 will be conced
ed upon higher authority, does asser
the doctrine which / now contend for
II is in the case Of Paul VS.. Railroa
Co., 4, Dill. 30, In the United State
circuit court for the eastern district @
Missouri, In which Judge Dillon, eX
pressing the opinion OF Mr.. Justic
Miller, OF the supreme court OF th
| United states, and United States Dis
triet Judge Trent, who sat with hiT
In the case expressly sinrmed the lin
itation which I contend for, upon
state board Of equalization, which wa
I authorized 20 adjust the aggregat
) valuation Of the property Of railroads.
The case was one in which the stat
board OF equalization undertook, Will
exercising its functions Of equalizl
ton, 10 raise the property Of the raj
road companies in Pettis county frol
nine thousand 10 twenty-siN thOusan
dollars a mile The opinion OF III
court declared that the law limite
the functions and powers Of this bod
to the work OF equalization, and thi
y the raising OF the valuation Of the raj
2 | road eomnaufac prDnerfv aruounfed