Arizona republican., 1906-01-21

gregate, valuation as determined by the boards of supervisors of the several counties" This limitation certainly does not imply that the board may not raise such aggregate valuation, but
 rather, strongly implies the contrary. In opposition to this view, we areI 1 cited to a number of decisions, dis 1 tinguishable, in the main, in the terms of the statutes interpreted. A case not thus to be distinguished is that of Poe Vs. Howell, 67 Pac., 62. This Is not decision of an appellate but of a nisi prius court, and has, therefore, less weight as authority. An examination
 of the case discloses that the territorial ! board of equalization of New Mexico 1 had increased the value of improved
 real estate and all stocks of merchan-
 disc in incorporated villages. towns and l cities, ten per cent, and all stocks of | mercha ndise outside of incorporated villages, towns and cities, fifteen per
 cent. of the said valuation thereof, as fixed and returned by the several coun-
 ty assessors" in every county in the | territory. The New Mexico statute gave this board power " to adjust and | equalize the assessment roll by raising | or lowering the values thereof so that 1 the same shall be of uniform value i throughout the territory" horizon i tai raise in the same percentage of all property in the same class, in all coun-
 ties, left the property, as regards uni-
 formity of assessment, precisely as it
 was before the raise. Therefore, the
 facts before the district court in that
 case were in no wise similar to the | facts before us. In many expressions
 in the opinion of the district judge, not i necessary to his conclusion in the case,
 we do not concur. The opinion of the | supreme court of Montana in the two cases of State vs. State Board, 46 Pac., 266. and State vs. Fortune, 50 Pac- 1OS6, from which we have already quot ed, are cited by petitioner but are in
 applicable for the same reason that People vs. Lothrop, hereinbefore con sidered at much length, is not applica
 ble. The Montana cases rest upon the Colorado case.
 The territorial board of equalization of Arizona did not exceed it's jurisdic
 tion by reason of the fact that the et- feet of its action is to increase the ag%
 gregate valuation Of all the property
 in the territory.
 The second contention is that the
 board of equalization exceeded it's juH
 risdiction by increasing the assess
 ments upon certain classes of property
 within the various counties. It is in
 sisted that the board must act upon
 the aggregate valuation of all property in each county as a. whole; that it
 must be assumed that the taxes have been equitable and uniformly levied among the various taxpayers within ! the county and among the various
 classes of property in the county. This
 is very plausible theory, but over looks that very weakness of human na- ture which our tax system, with it's , ] " Fip fl,a procuring of uniformity, expressly recognizes. The functions of the coun- ty boards of supervisors, as county boards of equalization, are based upon the recognized fact that county as-
 sessors can not be relied upon inva-
 riably to assess individual taxpayers
 with uniformity. The appeal provided , for from the county boards of equaliza- } tion to the district court discloses the
 knowledge of the legislative mind that . tthe county boards of equalization may
 do injustice in their assessments upon
 individual taxpayers. The direction to
 the territorial board of equalization to
 ascertain whether the valuation of property in the county bears a fair re- lation to the valuation in all other . counties in the territory, discloses a like knowledge that there may be an f unfair relation which some functionary should attempt to rectify. Finally, 7 when all the machinery of the law has been called into operation, the result is far from uniformity of taxation. , either as among the counties, among the classes Of property, or among the ? individual taxpayers. The legislature seem to us to have recognized that due to local conditions, cattle might