Bisbee daily review., 1905-08-27
AS TO HUMILIATION WORK.

| considerable has been said relative to the duties of the Territorial Board of Equalization it might be well to quote so much of the law in relation to such board as has a bearing or their recent action. In the session laws of 1903 paragraph No. 23, page 2s, we find that paragraph 3S79, section 49, chapter l. title 62 is amended. So much of this act as applies in this case reads as follows
 They shall sit at the office of the Territorial auditor on the second Mon day in August of each year for the pur- ized and required to examine the var ious assessments so far as regards the Territorial tax, and equalize the rate of assessment in the various counties whenever they are satisfied that the scale of valuation has not been ad- justed with reasonable uniformity by the different assessors and boards of equalization.
 Sec. ?. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed"
 Section 50, Revised Statutes, 1901: The said boaru sA4L ascertain whether the valuation of property in each county bears a fair relation or proportion to the valuation in all other counties in the Territory, and on such examination they may increase or di- minish the valuation of property in any county as much as in their judgment may be necessary to produce a just relation between all the valuations of property"
 It will be readily seen that if section 30. above quoted, in any way conflicts glth the act preceding it such act or part thereof so conflicting is voi4 --- )f no effect
 If it is the meaning of the law thatl the Territorial board should equalize 5y raising the vauation on such prop critics as are co-respondingly low as compared with similar properties in other counties and lowering those which are too high, then the present board in its recent action has exceeded .ts authority. If it be the meaning of the law that the aggregate assessment of each county should be raised or lowered according as the assessmen- | is too low or too high according to the amount and kind of property assessed | in the respective counties, then also has the board of equalization exceeded it's authority, but if it were intended that should any particular class of property throughout the Territory be assessed on a lower scale than other property, then the Territorial board would have right to place such prop erty on an equal basis with other prop erty, even though it had to be raised in every county in the Territory, and If the adjustment were just and eQuit- able the board would not be in error. But if either or all of the foregoing combinations were admissible the board of equalization is still in error, for in order to reach certain properties which they considered low, they have lperpetrated an unwarranted outrage on 99 per cent of the owners of mining claims affected by their action.
 If there is any authority delegated to the Territorial board to raise any particular property, as they have done in the case of mining claims, such au lthority could only be found in section 90, chapter ", title 62, Revised Stat utes 1901, which, to say the least, is ambiguous and such construction clearly in conflict with the act of 1903
 which has to do with the scale of val
 nations as between counties.
 That a fragrant injustice has beer
 done to the owners of unproductivt
 mining claims is clearly apparent
 What is the remedy?
 If the county boards take cognizance of the work Of the Territorial board
 and their tax rolls are made out ac
 cordingly. then the taxpayer must pay
 his taxes under protest. and seek re
 dress in the courts. Many of then cannot do this. If an injunction would lie and the board were restrained iron b taking cognizance of the action of ths
 Territorial board, then the taxe: r would be upon the county assessment [ and the matter of the legality or file ] gality of the action of the board be settled in the courts. If the county
 boards refused to take cOngnizance and to change their assessments ac- icordingly and the attoTneygenoral