Arizona republican., 1906-06-30
Meeting of Members of County Boards at
 the Capitol
General Response to the Invitation of the Auditor for Joint Consideration of Property Valuations Commit ncaton from Governor Kibbey Presented to Meeting

convention was called sometime ago at
 the suggestion of the governor to the
 territorial board of equalization. by
 Auditor John H. Page, chairman of the
 board. The supervisors were invited
 10 come in their capac ty as members
 of the county boards of equalization. for the subjects to be discussed were
 to appertain mainly to taxes and vaIu-
 atiOns. Early last spring there was a similar convention of the assessors
 of the respective counties and if was deemed a move in the right direction
 to later summons the county boards which pass on the work of the assess
 ors that there might be achieved a greater uniformity of action all over the territory in respect of each and all matters affecting taxation Further
 more it would give an opportunity for an exchange of views in all parts of the territory and therefore. presumably q more general appreciation of the facts and conditions and more equita- ble policies on the part of the asses
 sors and equalizing boards generally. It was therefore gratifying yester-
 day to note that every county in the 1 territory was represented in the con- IVention, except Coconino county
 1t was noticeable too. that some | counties in which the entire board could not come. were represented by ] the chairman. The gentlemen were as | sembled in the office of the territorial ! secretary. which offered the most room and the greatest convenience for their deliberations.
 : Those present representing the vari- ous county boa rds were: l. Isaacson. chairman. Apache county: Wm NJ Riggs, member, Cochise county; David Devore chairman. GiIa county; E. F. Billingsley, member, Graham county: J. r. Orme. chairman. T. N. Clanton and C. S Steward, members, Maricopa county; John =. Kolar, member Mo have county: R. C. Cresweu H B.
 Smith, members and MT. McAllister. clerk, Navajo county; F. L. Vail.
 chairman, C. F. Richardson. P. $.
 Hughes. mem Aers. Pima county: S 4 Barueson, Chairman, MT. Pow eH. member. Pinal county; J. A. Harrison. chairman Santa Cruz county; D. c. Sinclair. chairman. Bar ney Smith, Fred Sattes. members. and J. H. Robinson, clerk. Yavapai county; Ii. H. DonkersIey. member Yuma county; Messrs. J. H. Bowman. T. F. Wilson, F. H. Parker and Auditor Page of the territorial board. were also present as was Attorney General k. $. Clark.
 The convention organized by the election of E. L. Vail of Pima county. as chairman and J. H. Robinson of Yavapai county, as secretary. The convention then called in a body on Acting Governor Nichols and were all heartily welcomed by nm.
 The next order of business was the reading of a communication from Governor k obey who had expected to be here in person when the convention assembled but who has not yet re- turned from his visit in the east The address of the governor was read bv MT. Sims Ely, his private secretary. as follows: To the County Supervisors of the Ter
 ritory, Assembled at Phoenix, June
 29 1906:
 Gentlemen:-
 regret that I am not able to meet with you. At the time the day was fixed for this meeting. it was thought that the date was fixed to suit the the convenience of everyone concerned. 1 Business of the territory. however. called me away some three weeks i earlier than I had at first arranged.
 Probably one of the most perpIexing . things connected with the administra- ton of government is the fair ap- porttonment of the cost of that govern ment. The theory and the practice are widely divergent. Many schemes of . taxation have been devised and at tempted in practice It is conceded that the revenue system by which the burden of the cost of government is so distributed as to be borne with the least inconvenience and hardship bv all is the ideal one. The statement of { that principle seems simple enough; but the next step in whatever direction it may be taken. involves us at once in 
 IL would be interesting to examine into the various attempts at just taxa ton of revenue systems. but it would l. require too much of time and might not serve us any practical purpose. It Is sufficient for us to know that our revenue system is, with the exception or certain exemptions and license tax es, based on the requirement. that con trlouuons to the revenue shall be made by owners of property in proportion to the full cash value of that property
 Cash value as defined in our statute (Par- S836 R. s. 19O1) is "the amount at which the property would be taken in payment of a just debt from solvent debtor This excludes the notion that is to be valued for the pur- poses of taxation at what it would bring at a forced saIe-the standard at what would a creditor voluntarily take it for in discharge of his debt from his debtor who was able and will . ing to pay in cash
 It is made the plain, unquestiOned duty of the assessor to fix these values at their full cash value" and it is made their further duty to value all the property in his county that is subject to taxation. We fail in this respect in both particulars. The assessor does not get all the property subject to taxation and he does not value it at it's full cash value"
 As they fall short in either of these injustice ill just that pro-