Arizona republican., 1905-11-19

and the authority of the former over the latter. said Mr. Ellinwood is set forth in the following statute: ''On or before the fourth Monday in August Tn each year, the territorial auditor shall transmit to the board of supervisors Of each county a statement of the changes, if any, which have been made in the assessment by the territorial board of equalization and the rate Of taxes which is to be levied and collect ed within said county for territorial purposes. etc. This, said MT. E,llin- wood, is the only duty required Of the county boards by the statute. They are not compelled to take any action with reference to entering up the changes made by the territorial board. ''So," said he, there is no law or statute giving authority or imposing the duty on the board of supervisors of Yava- pal county and the clerk thereof to add to end carry out upon the assessment roll of said county the increased valu- ations and changes made in said as- sessment by the territorial board of equalization"
 There is said MT Ellinwood a defect in the law defining the duties of the county boards after receiving the state ment from tlIe territorial auditor, a casus omissus, a jumping off place. The district attorney quoted from Mer- Till on mandamus: "A court cannot order an officer to do an act which without the order of the court would not be his legal duty, an act beyond the duties enjoined upon him by law as pertaining to his office or position an act not authorized by law. Since the writ only issues to enforce the law as it stands it will not be used to enforce Casus omissus in the law"
 MT. Ellinwood quoted copiously from the American and English Encyclope- dia from California and Colorado re- ports and From Justice Sloan in the Bravin casc from Tombstone. He fur ther cited the following opinion from Justice White of the United States supreme court in the case of the Unit ed States vs. Lamont: Moreover the obligation must be both peremptory and plainly defined. The law must not only authorize the act but it must re- quire the act to be done. A mandamus will not lie against the secretary of the treasury unless the law requires him to do what he is asked in the petition to be made to do.
 Another suggestion made by MT. El- lnwuod was that at the time of the beginning of the mandamus proceed ings the duplicate tax roll of the coun- ty of Yavapai had passed by law be- yond the control of the county board and was in the possession of the trea surer ard tax collector. He was the person against whom the mandamus proceedings should have been begun if against anybody.
 MT. Ellinwood spoke briefly on a proposition that the territorial board had exceeded it's authority in making the raises and he was followed by Dis tTict Attorney Rawlins of Graham county whose contention was that the territorial board had no authority to increase the valuations which had been sent to it, it being presumed that the proper valuation had been made by the assessing powers of the county. MT. Rawlins further said that the increase was unneccssary. Q fact shown by the territorial board having already fixed the rate of taxation for territorial pur- poses on a basis of a valuation of $40,- 000, 900. Why then he asked, had it