The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-08-04

4
State has ever directed assessing Off
GERS to assess property at merely a per-
centage Of its value rather than actual
| value?'
The Supreme Court of Ohio, in WACO
ner V. Isoomis. 81 Ohio st. $50, said:
"A faithful execution of the different
| provisions Of the statutes would place
upon The duplicate for taxation all the
!. taxable property of the StaGe, whether
bank stocks or other property or real
estate, according to its true value in
money: and the equality required by the
Constitution has no other test. There
is nothing in the Constitution which re-
quires property to be taxed according to
the same Per cent of its true value in
money, save only the one hundred per
cent
The identical question was considered
] by the Supreme court of New Jersey in
rs \. ]. Law Z, where it is said:
"Ihe establishment of this system
| was mnch criticised by counsel, a promi-
nent argument being that it necessarily
introduced inequalities in the valuation
i of property for taxation, and that, by
the force Of its operation, such valua-
ton was not made cas- the Constitution
/ multiform rule. And, in support Of tnis
contention. the attention Of the conl4
was directed to the fact which mas been
established, net only by the testimony.
/ Dut by the report Cf the State Board
| or Assessors itself, that though if was
universal Practice of the assessors of
| the different tax districts to rate prom
/ elty much below It's real value, the State
! BGaId had rated this Corporate property
| ut Its true value. That this discrepancy
arising ont of the practical opera items
| Or the methods of valuation, existed.
| was not disputed. but this result. If
IS manifest, was not the legal on proper
| result OF The plan of assessment thus in
/ troGuced by the Legislature. That plan
| provided but one measure of valuation
ana that Is the TRUE value of tine taxa
| PIE property, and that measure was TO
/ &c afplled alike by the local assessors
| anu the State Tax Board: SO that if
| both sets of officers had performed their
dthS, there Would have obtained tt1af
! tllfty OF rule that the Constitution do
| hElnGs. The local officers disobeyetl the
injunction of the law, and the coftpn
| tlom Is that the State officers should
nave pursued the same forbidden t.out-sa
ana THAT their acts should now be do
| ciared TO be abortive, because they re-
FUSED TO perpetltate sttch a .malftasonce
/ Such an argument in our cStimatiau
mas no force whatever; and indeed. If
! seems a novel suggestion That the court
saonld slnm1i proceeding Deallse such
| preceding conforms to the law
| me SHrreme Court of Illinois in Rail
read Co V. Stookey. 122 III. AIS in
cnstderlng this question said:
The law requires the State
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION to value the
properly at its fair cash value and
the taxes for that year To be
extended against it upon that valuation
All inns was done in substantial con
iorlnity with the requirements Of the
statute, yet the action Of the board i
aSsalied and the tax in part sought To hp
ser aside, simply because the township
assessors probably failed to perform
thelr duty IN respect to the assessment
OF other property In the townships. The
appellant IN effect says the board should
nave dlsregarded this law because the
township assessors had done so in the as
sessment of the other property in tho
townships. This view of the matter We
90 not regard as sound Valuations for
purposes Of taxation had necessarily 10
be left TO the Judgment and determine
ton of some human tribunal The Leg
lslature in its wisdom has coniided this
duty and trust. in the case of railroad
property like the present, to the State
Board of Equalization"
In City of Lowell VS.. Commissioners.
lo2 Mass. 312, the court said:
1T is violation of the statutes know
Ingly to make valuation OF property.
Tor the purlgse Of taxation, at less or
more than its full and fair cash value.
The just proportion intended by the ex-
isting statutes is attained by assessing
the property of different persons ut IA
uniform rate, and upon its fair cash
valuation. Whatever may be the rene
dy, If there be any, when it is shown
that the assessors have Intentionally as
sessed the property of a part or all of
its inhabitants at less than fair cash
value, we are Of the opinion that iu Pc
titlon for the abatement of taxes ON the
ground of the overyaluation Of the
property, and Of disproportionate taxa
ton, arising from such generalization,
the question is whether the property has
been valued Mt more than its fair cash
value, and not whether it has been
valued relatively more or less than
similar property Of other persons.'
In Central r. X. Co. vs.. State Board
Of Assessors. decided in 1896 by the
Supreme court Of New Jersey and re-
ported in 40 N. j. Law 1, it appeared
that the State of New Jersey had pass
ed a statute, the 18th section Of which
provided that if local assessors valued
property for taxation at less than true
value, the State Board shall and must
accept the said valuation as a common
standard of value for railroad proper
ties. The local assessors took but
percentage, which they deemed the true
value of the property assessed by them
The State board refused to take this
standard Of valuation. The court held
that the State could not take such re-
duced valuation as its standard of
value.
X THE STATUTES OF NORTH
CAROLINA FORBID THE APPLE
CATION OF SUCH A RULE OF
VALUATION.
The machinery act of 1899, chapter Is.
section "a, provides that the list takers
and assessors shall ascertain the true