Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-07-24
THE TAX CASE.
Argument Submitted and the
Matter Taken Under Advise
ment.

LeIUdy morning ny Tic l1tIOuuCtlON Vi
a few more affidavits on behalf of the
State
1t was then agreed that the railroad
should have the privilege of submit
ting rebuttal affiidavits any time within
the coming week. Two hours was al
lowed each side for argument to be
divided as counsel might agree.
Judge Murphy opened the argument
for the complainant company. He be-
gan by referring to the affidavit of
Controller Davis which defendants had
introduced, as being irrelevant and i'm
material and purely hearsay. He con-
tinued that the affidavit should be ruled
out. The same contention was made
against introduction of the statistical
reports of the Interstate Commerce
Commission on the ground that they
had not been previously attested and
proven. Judge Murphy then content
ed himself with personal opinion that
these two bits of evidence would ulti-
mately be ruled out by the Court and
intimated that he would not consider
them in the course of his argument
He then proceeded to explain the posi-
ton of the complainant company as to
the constitutionality of the Revenue
Law upon which the present valuation
of railroad property was based. The
complainant takes the position that as
the Central Pacific railroad had been
deprived OF is "day II court" b; viz
tue OF its being deprived OF the privi-
lege, under the terms of the Act. OF ap-
pearing before the several county
boards of equalization throughout the
State. that the Act itself was in viola
ten of the Constitution and was there
fore strictly illegal and void The
second Constitutional objection was
based upon the ground that Article 10
Of the Constitution of the State OF Ne
vada. which provides that all taxations
throughout the State shall be uniform,
was violated by the Board OF Assess
Ors when they fixed the valuation OF
the complainant companys property.
To sustain this contention it was ar
gued that under legal authority the val
ue OF railroad property should be FIX
ed, not by the general value OF the
property itself, but by its detailed value
to the respective countys through
which a certain portion of the road
might rum In other words it was CON
per mile might be excessive in some
| counties of the State, it might also be
really less than its true value in anoth-
err county OF the State, and therefore
the present general valuation was not
strictly uniform. Some stress was laid
upon the affldavits and verified answer
of the defendant. Judge Murphy com
mented rather severely upon the fac,
| that those assessors who had verified
the answer of the defendants had Civ,
en- it as their opinion upon information
and belief that the cash value of the
compliments property was at leas
$4,000 per mile; that some of these
same assessors had submitted sworr
af6davits to the effect that it was worth
$4,000 and $4,000 mile, and that thu
Board of Assessors had, by majorit,
vote, in spite of what they considered
to be the true cash value of the prop
erty, ultimately fixed the cash valua
ton of the road at $4,000 per mile
These inconsistencies he characterize,
as having been based upon ignorance
!. arbitrariness or political influence
The company took the position ais,
that the Board of Assessors, under tn
law, had no right to classify certain
: property, fix its valuation, and refrain
from fixing the valuation of othe
property throughout the State. Tha
an arbitrary fixing of valuation wa
clearly IN violation OF the law and tina
this discrimination as to certain prop
erty was also in violation of Article 1
of the Constitution in relation to tn
uniformity of taxation throughout tn
State.
The Attorney General began the ar
gument for the State. He believe
t that under the Constitution of tn
State and under the legal decisions G
the Supreme Court of this state that tn
!, legislature had the right to delegat
t those powers which the Constitutio
e and the laws of the State had ascribe
r as inherent within it. He took the pos
: ition that the act under considerable
: was constitutional not only because
: his opinion it violated no provisions {
IL 1..x I.