Bisbee daily review., 1905-11-21
COPPER QUEEN CASE
 BEFORE TERRITORIAL BOARD
JURISDICTION OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION BROUGHT
 INTO QUESTION.
Cases Are Taken Under Advisement By Supreme Court-OecisionW Will Be Given in January-Supreme Court Adiourns.

Phoenix. Nov. IS.-The Supreme Court convened this morning at ten o'clock in open session and Attorney General Clark took up his argument of yesterday in the case of the Copper Queen company against the Territo- rial Board of Equalization in which that company asked the court for writ of certiorari to compel the Board of Equalization to show it's authority in law for raising the valuation of mines of the territory for purposes of taxation.
 MT Clark followed closely the lines of his argument of yesterday. He de clared that the assessor was not the sole judge of valuations. and that the Board of Equalization, in raising the valuations on the mines was acting strictly within its lawful rights.
 He contended that the board had a perfect and well defined right to act as an equalization body as between different classes of property. He cit ed the fact that the board of equaliza. Iion had for the past eighteen years raised different classes of property ever the figures as returned by the county assessors and these acts had practically gone unchalleneged and were accepted by both the people and the courts until the present time.
 MT. Clark said that in raising any one particular class of property the board only looked at the matter in the light of raising the property as class and had no intention of working a har1Sbin on any individual
 Col. Herring, appearing for the Cop per Queen company, took exceptions to MT. Clark quoting from an alleged return of the territory to the applica- ton of his company for a writ of cer- tiorari, claiming that no such return had been filed. MT. Clark acknowl edged the oversight and asked leave to file his return this afternoon.
 The Attorney General again denied that the Arizona tax law had been taken from the Colorado law and re- iterated the statement made yester- day that the Arizona Board of Equall' zation was in no way governed by the decisions of the Colorado courts. Mir Clark finished his argument al II o'clock and Mrs. Sorrin, Col. Her rings law partner, addressed the court in answer to the Attorney General E argument. Mrs. Sorrin's argument was to the effect that the Board of | Equalization exceeded its authority and was out of it's jurisdiction when Il | raised the assessment on the mines | She quoted extensively from decisions | Of the Colorado courts in support oi | her contention, thereby showing that l the attorneys for the mining compa l nies will place their chief reliance or | the alleged fact that the Arizona law was taken from that of Colorado ana ! that. consequently. the decisions oi the courts in that state govern here. She contended that the board hat no right in law to raise any one par ! ticular class Of property. In otbei
 words, that it had a right in law oniI | to raise the total assessed valuation o
 county and not single out any onC | interest.
 | At the afternoon session of the cour
 the mandamus proceedings of th' | Board of Equalization against Yava pal county were taken up and Distric | Attorney [. E. Ellinwood opened fo Il the county. In his argument he claim ed that the county could not be com [ pelled to do that which the law di not impose upon it. and that therefor the application of the Attorney Genel } al for writ of mandamus to compt 7 the board Of supervisors 10 place th - raise against the mining companiet
 as ordered by the Territorial Board ( Y Equalization. would not stand, as theI al was no warrant for 1t in law.
 al At the conclusion of the arguIAeni q on Saturday the Supreme Court too |; an adjournment to January.