The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1898-06-26
-s.ss
BOARD HAS POWER
10 EquaIize Assessments on
Return
BY RAISING OR LOWERING
The Estimates Sent in By
Assessors.
'Y RAISING OR LOWERING


supreme court OF the territory this morn
ing handed down an opinion In the Wal
lace VS.. Bullen case upon motion for re-
hearing, which reYerses the opinion In
the Gray vs.. Stiles case and anirms the
right OF the territorial board OF equal!za-
ton TO eQuallze assessments submitted
by the various counties. The opinion in
the GraySuiles case denied the power OF
the board TO increase the total assess
ment, The tax cases have been pending
before the supreme court in one form or
another since 1895, and the final result Is
gratifying in a legal sense TO Attorney
General Cunningham, who conducted the
territory side OF the case. The opinion
was rendered by Chief Justice Burford.
all the justices concurring except Nc
Aztec. It is as follows:
This case was decided by this court
at the June term. 1886. Opinion published
herewith). At the same time a petition
for rehearng was fled but owing to an
equal division in opinion OF the judges
qualified TO consider the same, remained
undisposed OF until the present term.
when said decision was allowed. and the
cause reargued and resubmitted. Subse-
quently TO the rendition or the original
opinion herein, a change in the member
ship of the court having in the meantime
occurred on September, 3, 1891 majority
of the court promulgated decision in the
case of GRAY VS.. Stiles, ls Pac., 1883, in
volving the same question as this cause,
and laid down contrary doctrine. over
ruling the former decision in this cause.
and declared the law TO be that the Terri
torial Board of Equalization had no power
in equalizIng the assessments of the varI-
Gus counties of the territory to increase
the aggregate valuation determined from
the returns made 10 said board by the
several county clerks. except such slight
increase as might be incidental to such
equalization. After a careful considera-
ton of the question involved in these con-
flicting opinions, each adopted by the ma
jority of this court as constituted at the
time such opinions were respectively rem
dered, and after an exhaustive examina-
tkn of all the authorities cited in the
former opinions and briefs of counsel as
well os the able and carefully considered
opinion recently delivered BY the supreme
court Of Utah, in State ex-rel., Cunning
ham, ct al, VS.. Thomas, ct al, 50 Pa,
Rep, 615. involving the same question,
we are clearly of the opinion that the law
was not correctly stated in the case of
Gray vs.. Stiles. and causes following
same. and that the reasoning therein is
unsOund and the conclusions unsupported
by the authorities relied upon. We hold
that the law was correctly stated in the
former opinion in this cause and the con-
clusion therein reached is hereby ap-
proved.
The question IN controversy is clearly
one of statutory power, and where the
board is given the power to equalize. and
there is no limitation on the manner in
which this power shall be executed. There
is nothing in the meaning of the word
equaliZe which supports the contention
that the board must select an average
valuation and then add to the lower and
take from the higher in order not 70 in
crease or diminish the aggregate. The
word equaiiZe means TO make equal to-
to take a number of objects and select
one of such number for the standard. and
make all the others conform TO it. And
under the provisions Of our statutes re-
lating TO the assessment and valuation
of property for revenue purposes, and de-
filming the powers of the several officers
and boards. we nod that the Territorial
Board of Equalization in exercising its
powers to equalize the assessments Of the
various counties for purposes Of taxation,
may from all the returns made from the
various counties determine which Of such
returns in the judgment of the board
most nearly represents an assessment
based upon the true cash value Of the
property in such county, and may adopt
such return as the standard or basis for
equalization. and may add 70 or deduct
from ali the remaining returns such per
cent as will be required TO cause the vari-
Gus other counties TO conform TO such
standard or basis in assessed valuation,
Notwithstanding such action may result
in increasing or diminishing the aggregate
valuation as shown by the returns made
by the several county clerks.
The case OF Gray VS. Stiles. and cases
following same are overruled. and the de-
csion. Judgment and orders made and en-
tered in this cause on the nth day of July,
1896 are in all things affirmed"