Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-08-21
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The Revenue Law so Declared
by Judge S. J. Bonnifield.

The revenue law passed by the las. !,
legislature was this morning declared /
unconstitutional in an opinion rem /
dered by Judge S. J. Bonnifeld, Jr., in
the Hardin VS.. J. w. Guthrie, Assessor
Of Humboldt county, case.
The case was brought a month ago
in the form of petition for a writ OF
mandamus to compel the County AS !
SCISSOR to determine the cash value of
twelve head of yearling cattle. the
property of petitioner, and to assess
them at uniform rate of valuation in
comparison with like property situated
in said county. In explanation it
should be stated that the Assessor had
previously declined to fix valuation
upon the cattle, the State Board of
Assessors at its meeting held in April,
under the authority of the new revenue
law, having fixed the valuation on all
stock cattle at $I7 per head. The pro-
ceedings, it will be seen, were brought
to compel the Assessor to fix his in
dividual assessment on the twelve head
of cattle, without regard for the valu-
alton fixed by the State Board of AS
SCISSORS. A decision for the plaintiff
would be in effect to declare the reve-
nue. law unconstitutional, while, on
the other hand should the respondent
win, the law would be upheld.
! The mandamus proceedings were
heard in Judge Bonnifeld's court on
July Goth and submitted after argument
by counsel The decision has been
looked forward to as being of great
Importance in testing the constitutions
atty OF the revenue law.
This morning Judge Bonniheld rem
dered his decision. The opinion was
given orally but he announced that
he would file a written opinion in a
short time. He holds that the late act
OF the legislature is clearly unconsti-
tutional for the resOn, among others
that the act provides for depriving the
taxpayer OF his property without CIV
ing notice and an opportunity to be
heard He referred and read man,
authorities directly to the point.
1t seems that in the case of the Cen
l trail Pacific Company VS., the State
Board OF Assessors in the United
States Circuit Court, the question o
the consttutionality OF the act was no
urged by counsel or considered by tn,
Court We are informed that the au
thorities cited by Judge Bonniheld ar
conclusive and that there is no decis
ion that will support the act in eithe
the State or Federal courts
1t is probable that the case will b,
appealed to the Supreme Court of tn
State, where the constitutionality o
the law will be finally decided. Jane
F. Dennis is the attorney for the pc
{ titioner in the case, District A1torne
Hood representing the respondent.
Judge Bonniheld's decision, afte
stating the nature OF the proceeding
and summing up the evidence, cor
cludes as follows:
"Wherefore, the Court finds by rea
!, son of the above named proceeding
and of the evidence as aforesaid a
conclusions of law:
That the Act of the Legislator
:. entitled An Act to Provide for
l. More Uniform Valuation and Asses:
e ment of Property in this State" al
n proved March 16, 1901, is unconstit,
S tional and void, for the reason that
{ delegates to the Board of Assessor
IS sought to be created by its provision
the power to classify and assess an
20 property within the State, without pre-
4 viding what property it may assess, {
= providing any regulations to COVER
o said Board in arriving at valuatio
= of any property it may act upon, whis
makes it repugnant to and in conf1i
with Section of Article III of Il
ii Constitution of this State, and of Sc
n ton 1 of Article x of said Constit,
n ton, in that it delegates to said Boa,
l. of Assessors the power to value ar
a assess any property it may see f
f. without combining or restricting II
" powers of said Board in that particul;
- in any manner, and without prescri
ing any regulations or rule by whit
just valuation of the property tn,
- see fit to act upon shall be arrived Z
which unrestricted power can resi-,
alone in the Legislature Of the Stat
p and cannot be delegated to any 9th
branch of the government.
THAT said Act of the Legislatu
IS is particularly in contravention wi
r Section of Article of the Constit
il ton of this State, and Section
ID Article XIV of amendments to Il
a Constitution of the United States,
v that it would deprive petitioner of h