Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-08-13
THE R. r. WINS.
Judge HawIey Decides That
the State Board Exceeded
it's Power. ,..........

ion in the Sttae tax case yesterday |
morning at 10 o'clock 1t occupied
nineteen typewriter pages and the
following is a synopsis OF the main
points in the case in which the Cen
trail Pacific railroad succeeds in es-
tablishing the main feature Of its con-
tention, that the railroad property was
improperly classified by the State
Board of Assessors:
The decision is quite lengthy and
discusses several important questions.
After deciding that the case presented
is one which demanded the equitable
interposition of a Court by injunction
and reviewing certain reviSons OF the
Act of March 16. 1901, and citing MI
merous authorities on the subject as to
how property should be assessed for
the purpose of taxation, it declares that
''the various objections urged against
this act present several questions OF
grave importance. The provisions OF
the act constituted a departure from the
usual modes OF assessment OF property
hitherto existing in this State.
1T will be noticed that Section I,
provides that nothing contained in the
act shall be so construed as to impair
the rights OF the board OF equalization
OF any county to equalize taxes on all
property the valuation OF which has not
been fixed at the annual meeting OF
county assessors as provided in this
respect, against the rights OF the own
ers of property. the assessment OF
which is fixed by the Board OF Asses
sors
ct is :; mooted question upon which
there is ample room for wide differ
ence of opinion as to whether or not
it will accomplish the beneficial pur-
poses expressed in the title, For a
more uniform valuation and assess
ment of property in this State 1t
does not require the valuation of all
property under its provision; or OF
any particular species of property. but
leaves these matters to the discretion
TO the State Board OF Assessors. The
provisions OF Section l recognizes the
fact that there is property within this
State which cannot be designated into
classes of property And hence can
not be valued by the State Board
Who is to determine this matter? l.
= IT. IL, -,
to decide this question. 1t may divid
one or more species of property int
Glasses of property and be of opinion
that the other property will not admi
of uniform value if divided into elias
ses. It's power in this respect is ur
limited. The act contemplates tina
the Board may do this and in Sector
provides that The assessors OF tn
several counties of this State shal
fix value on all property not so DIES
ignated at said meeting in the name
now provided by law 1t will thus
seen that the present act instead 6
closing the gates against injustice
leaves the door wide open for all sort
of discrimination. The present act i
perhaps, as open to criticism as wer
the defects in the former law which
is claimed this act was intended t
avoid. But with these matters Court
have nothing to do. 1t is simply tn
question of power that we are Gale
upon to discuss and determine. VIII.
Their the power of the legislature wa
reasonably or unreasonably exerci.
ed; whether it was wise or unwise
expedient or inexpedient to enact
law are questions left exclusively t
the legislative department of the stat
government to decide and their jud,
ment necessarily be decisive upo
these questions
authorities cited) .'.
1t will be assumed for the purpo:
of this opinion, without deciding
that the act is unconstitutional, and
will be admitted. for the purposes
this discussion that the legislature h;
the Constitutional limits to present.
different means and methods Of asse
ment, and of ascertaining values
railroad property for the purposes
taxation, from the means and metho'
applied to other properties"
1t was then assumed, without deci
ing the question that the act was CO
stitutional and in the course of II
opinion it is said:
"The most serious question invol
ed in this case is that heretofore spe
flied at point 5 in the contention
compliments counsel and relates sol
ly to the powers given by the act to II
state board of assessors. Did tn
board act beyond its jurisdiction?
Pursuant to the provisions Of II
statute the assessors met and organi