The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1898-06-29
From the Decision of the Oklahoma
Supreme Court in the Equal
iZation Cases.
MORE MONEY is NEEDED
And the Territorial Board Proceeds to "EquaiiZe'
According to Law--Mandamus Proceedings
Against Certain County Clerks.

4 authorizing tNem 10 eQOdllZet were those
! Of adjustment and equalizing'' alone.
| The recent case of State vs. Thomas
| handed down by the supreme court OF
Utah on the second day of October. 1897
| is now relied upon by the court here 70
sustain the power of the territorial board
| Of equalization to value property. 1t Is
! valueless in every aspect to promote the
argument Of the court in the matter since
| the opinion itself expressly states that
/ the state and county boards whose juris-
dlction was drawn in question. acted
within the power conferred by the con-
stitution and statutes. The opinion OF
the court then proceeds TO cite the stat
utes of the state, stating that:
'Secion Il, relating to county boards,
which reads as follows: The board has
power, after giving notice in such man
ner as It may, by rule, prescribe, to in
crease or lower any assessment contained
in the assessment book, so as to equalize
the assessment Of the property contained
therein, and make the assessment conform
to the true value Of such property in
money has been referred to by counsel
70 rthe defendants, by comparison with
subdivision of section 50, referring to the
powers Of the state board, which reads:
AT such meeting to equaliZe the valua-
ton Of the taxable property of the sew
eral counties in this state for the pur-
pose Of taxation; and to that end, under
such rules Of notice to the county auditor
of the county affected thereby, as it may
prescribe, to increase or lower any as
sessment of the property contained there
in, and to make the assessment conform
to the true value in money Of the prop
erty assessed
It will therefore be observed that the
statutory authorization is in the first in
stance directory to the board of county
commissioners TO increase or lower any
assessment contained in the assessment
book, $50 as to make the assessment
conform to the true value of such prop
erty in money" and that the state board
of equalization is expressly directed to in
crease or lower any assessment contained
in the assessment book so as, not only to
equalize the assessment of property con-
tanned therein, but ''to make the assess
ment conform to the true value in
money" of the property assessed; and
these boards are therefore expressly au-
thorized, not only to equalize, but also
to add to the value Of anLefoperty con-
tanned in the assessment rolls or books
and are expressly, and by the statute of
Utah, given the power to assess and
value, as well as equalize, and the SUI
preme court of that state, in rendering
the decision in State VS. Thomas simply
expressed the plain words of the statute
Of that state, which, in terms too plain to
aided by Interpretation, expressly directs
these boards TO become assessing boards.
There" said the judge, holding up
long envelope covered with authorities,
'is a list of authorities upon which I
stand. The supreme court of Ohio; of
Iowa, in two cases; the supreme court of
Wisconsin; the supreme court of Nebras-
ka; the supreme court of Indiana; the
supreme court Of Oregon; the supreme
court of California in three cases; the
supreme court of Colorado; the supreme
court of Missouri; the supreme court of
Montana; the supreme court of Illinois,
in three cases; the supreme court of Ida
no, and all law-writers citing these very
cases drew the inference that is drawn
in the case of Gray VS.. Siles-that these
boards of equalization, being charged
with no other power than that of equal
izing from the assessment rolls, cannot
the valuation of property. They
have no power to change the value of
as ascertained from yhe various
assessment rolls from the varions counties
except such as are incident to the caicu-
lations which are made for The purpose
of equalizing while retaining as closely
as possible the aggregate basis of taxa
ton as made by the local assessors. And
so the text books declare:
Desty on Taxation at page 1876
Burroughs on Taxatian. at page 235, and
Judge Cooley in his work on taxation at
page as says that these tribunals are
the mere creatures of the statute, and
must look to it for all their powers. and
refers to many of the cases cited in the
Gray VS.. Stiles for his authority.
All the authorities draw from that infer
ence.
So also the same Interpretation in %
American and English Encyclopedia of
Law. page PAT.
1t may be stated to you that these !
cases do not bear upon the question, but 1
say. and stake my reputation as a judge /
anu d. Il ELs anu AAANUAG tie irt1L INNS
and the industry of the bar Of this terri |
tory, and I challenge contradiction. The |
bar should inform itself upon the matter. !
A just determination should be had. Il I
may never come. 1t may be that when |
this matter goes TO the supreme court Of 4
the United States the supreme court may /
apply that rule of Interpretation which \
usually leaves to the supreme court Of 4
the territory the Interpretation Of its own /
local statutes. II so. 50 be 1t. But I say I
now that this court has no power 10 do I
this thing, and in doing II. il has under 1
taken 10 sanction that act which has 1
raised the total valuation Of this terri <
tory from twenty-eight millions to thirty /
nine millions OF dollars. and TO raise the 4
possible Indebtedness OF the various mu- 4
inequalities Of this territory by an increase
II ore million, nve hundred thousand |
dollars; and do not think there is any |
for it on the part % the ter 4
-itorial board OF equalization. except to /
ivoid the federal statusc o. July -. 1856. 4
whereby congress. trying 10 avoid the /
constant effort OF the authorities IN the
territories % over-;ax property and 10 l
ancumber the municipalities and people /
With Indebtedness. enacted the law whlch l
prohibited the territorial authorities from
axing property to The extent OF more 4
ian ! per cent upon the las, annual as 4
'essmeut and prohibited the nunlcipaa-
les OF the territory from mourning any
iabiiyity in excess 0: per cen; q the
asi annual assessment cannot bur re-
gard the action o. the board here as an
fort on the part OF the territorial board
Y eoual.zatson OF Is % ors-rssa .ha Ia |