Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1906-01-24

board could raise or lower by classes of property, instead of by entireties.
 "lt was also claimed by Mir. Ellin- wood that the Arizona statute was talk. en from similar statute in Colorado, and his contention cited many parallel cases that came before the Colorado courts in which decisions were rendered favorable to his views. I claimed 1 that under the constitution of the state of Colorado the power of fixing valua. tions was conferred upon the assessor and the assessor only, while in Arizona we have no constitution. Therefore, the legislature has the power to confer au. thority on or in any officer of the board it sees ft 10 fix valuations.
 "Tbe court declined to issue the writ of mandamus on the ground that the territorial board of equalization had failed to adopt a standard by which to cqualize the classes of property in the different counties of the territory. The point upon which the decision was rendered was not raised by counsel on either side of tho case, although it was incumbent upon the attorneys for | the defendants to have seen and raised it and certainly not upon the attorney for the territory"
 In their arguments neither Mir. FL linwood nor Col. Herring made n single point that was sustained by the supreme court, and the attorney general did not make n point that was not sustained on every legal position that was advanced. The question as to the territorial board of equalization having the right to raise and lower as' sessmcnts has been fully and absolute ly sustained. It is not material to the territory whether the raise was made for the year 1905 or not as long as the principle that the territorial board of equalization has the right to raise assessments of different classes of property when the same has not been made high enough by the county authorities.
 The general consensus of opinion of all the lawyers present in the supreme court when the decision was rendered, and there were about thirty of our lead ing jurists there, was that it was the ablest ever handed down by the supreme court of the territory and would be n decided credit to any court in the United States.
 Hcnry T. Andrews.
 Henry T. Andrews, of the law firm of Andrews and Pattee, who resigned tho ,osi,ion of territorial auditor in tho year 1887 to accept the position Of sec retary to the first territorial board of equalization when that body was estab lished. whos always has taken deep Tn terest in the proceedings of the boari and whose legal opinion is often sought by. other attorneys when question: nrisc as to the rights of the board o' tax matters in general, when approach cd yesterday and asked as to what h' thought of the recent mandamus dee' sion rendered by the supreme court said:
 "My position has always been tha inc territorial board of equalization can take any class of property m an! one county as standard of value an' raise or lower the assessment of th same class of property inseysry othe county, So as to equaIire 1t throushon inc territory. have always held 'ha the board has full authority vested Il , i, by the statutes to equal'ze assess ments and in equaIizing assessment has the right to raise and lower fh same in the different counties
 .Th. decision will not, m my op' nion. affect in any way the assessment made last year when the suit wa started, for the reason that the 'efr' ,oriaI board of equalization had adopt .d no fixed standard of value O mines throughout the territory hu it shows that the board has amP' authority to fix standards Of valu and the decision will serve as ga'' E - s,,nre actions of county and te'