Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-02-03
conntv Attorney Holds That the
Whole Matter Rests With
The Assessor.
IS INSTRUCTED TO co AHEAD.
..,,,,d, That State Board Of Equall'
cation Has Nothing to Do
With II.

' Int Attorney Westervelt In regard
,be relative powers Of assessing
nronerty ior taxation in this county o'
-" Toto hoard Of equalization and the
wy - assessor The county attorney
la. that the assessor is the only oi'''
'aI authorized TO make assessments OF
o.onerty IN this county and he advises
,,ot official 10 go ahead and assess al
'.ororty subject 10 taxation and not
n any attention TO the state board
o. an amendment to the statute au'
,borlzipg the board OF equalization to
,.,lo certain assessments, the Legis-
,,,pre OF 1929 brought that statute In
s,,.c, conflict with the Constitution OF
n. state. hence the county attorney
Solds that such amended statute Is I'M
Constitutional and the board, therefore
nae no assessing power. The opinion
., the county attorney follows
COUNTY ATTORNEYS OPINION
n begin with, the taxing power is
,rborent and absolute in the sovereign
mi M the commonwealth or state,
ssod the LEGISLATURE, In the absence OF
snv EXPRESS or necessarily implied con-
s,lintonal prohibition or Limitation.
NAV BIZ law express and define the
mode and extent Of the exercise OF this
RIVER without restriction. II, however,
,se constitution Of the state contains
any restriction or limitation upon the
eyerclse OF this power by the Leglsla-
,nre or prescrIbes definitely the man.
nor in which such power may be exer-
clsed. the Legislature Is definitely
hound thereby. As, for instance. II the
constitution should provide that the
legislature may confer the taxing pow
or for certain purposes upon certain ex-
prtssly described officers, any attempt
on the part OF the Legislature TO con-
FER such power on any other than these
described officers would be unconstitu-
tiOna and void.
The evident intent OF the trainers OF
The Constitution OF Utah, as expressed
in Sec II, Art. 10, and as further eyi.
denced by the proceedings OF the Con.
,ututIona Convention. was that the
state board of equalization should act
ss simply an equahzing board. and
nothing else Ii is true that the con-
Guiding words Of the section provide
that the board shall also perform such
other duties as may be prescribed by
hV' But II seems unnecessary to
POINT out that these other duties can
hardly be held 10 include any duties or
powers which the Legislature, In viola,
ton Of any constitutional limitation.
might seek to impose or confer upon
the board.
Art 10, Sec OF the Constitution OF
Utah reads as follows; THE LegIsla-
ture shall not impose taxes for the pur-
poses Of any county, city, town or 9TH
eT municipal corporation; but may, by
law vest In the corporate authorities
thereof respectively, the power TO as
Sc" and collect taxes for all purposes
of such corporation"
What the Legislature cannot do dI.
lectly II can no more do by indlrection.
u is forbidden to impose taxes for the
purposes o. county, or to confer upon
any one except the corporate authori.
lies OF such county, the power to as.
sess or collect taxes for any county
purposes,
But It would appear that the LegIs.
azure had deliberately overstepped this
limitation In Secs. 2jl3, 1850, 25el, 1854
and indirectly In some other sectIons)
ot the Revised Statutes, ~ these Sec
IONS Of the law the Legislature has at
tempted TO confer upon the state board
ine power to assess the property and
franchises Of certain classes OF compa.
mes operating in more than one
county IN this state;" to provide the
methods Of leyylng such assessment,
ana TO declare tSec, 256b) that 'the as
made by the county assessor,
shl mat Of the state board OF equall-
tauoh, , Is the only basis OF tax
Aloh Tor the county" etc. This law
was passed IN 1895, and In 1899 the Leg
stature apparently emboldened by the
,ucCess of this venture, proceeded still
Iulher struck out the words "operat-
W. IN one county" and included An the
.lusses ot property TO be assessed by
lne state board OF equalization the net
Of mines--all this TO be "the
ply oasis OF taxation for the county"
upon lheSo classes OF property. by
.9ese acts the Legislature has attempt.
q 10 confer land In effect has con-
slItl) upon the state board certain
lowers expressly limited by the Con.
'ulu'lon 10 be conferred only upon the
vrp0fale authorities Of the county
me county assessor IL a part OF ,he
authorities Of his county, and
I'VE Legislature, In secs. 25l6, 1858 land
'Wer soeIIons) has imposed upon the
oul'l assessor certain duties IN ie.
.SIg 10 the assessment OF property
,l,'u his county, and making GER
a'il exceptions In regard to property
" We assessed by the state board. In
Iy opinion, the state board cannot be
wen under the Constitution any power
assess any property whatsoever for
Cnhly purposes
h, iu'i''oIe, my advice 10 you IL this:
nay Oh reading the law which pre-
w. lo'N your duties In regard to asses
,ss p.operly to your county, you elm
NV theretrom and disregard all ex.
gpu9h made In favor OF the state
V',' oil EQUALIZATION, In other words
,"' l"u make your assessment upon
~ l"ANole property within the county
''"N"'s no exception OF any kind or
. o's OF property whatsoever, except OF
yu' N' such az Is exempt by law,
own aware that this construction
'aE De- regarded by some az reyolu.
oO'ly In a measure. am also
"aI' mat the exercise OF these powers
,,, we state hoard has been generally
~, Ne''S'ed IN for number OF years.
aNqulescence may be the result
wv one or more OF large var
W OF reasons. But II the exercise OF
''JF powers Is In fact wrongful, &C.
Hes''hce VIII not make II right.
.gIe0'er the fact that these laws have
..VeIlo been acqulesced IN IA no guar
lrstloned "N'N "
. ~, as ! am convinced Is true, the as
,nb OF any property whatever for
ats purposes by the state board Ia
!, ",Tn,OoluIeY unconstitutional and void
n ulsh one possible result Of such act
M wa" Is readily apparent. Any per-
,nr VT corporation whose property has
nv assessed by the state board, and
e Sv rs dissatisfied with such asses.
y, v may with good reason refuse 10
y I, ,'s YAK on the ground that IL is
ent . ' "''" IiieBa' assess
!" az =, uelng question OF such wide
de- "a, ,,r.e,aohing Importance, I have
r. IVasored 70 give you my reasons FOR
20 opinion thus fully and in detail, in