Belding banner. (Belding, Mich.) 1889-1918, 1906-03-01
MICHIGAN
HAPPENINGS
THE GALBRAITH LAW is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
SAYS COURT.
COMMISSION MUST LEVY TAX ON
THE RAILROADS AT st7.4o
PER $1,000.
JUSTICE MONTGOMERY WROTE
THE OPINION WHICH ALL
CONQUERED IN.
The Law is Void.

The Galbraith equalization law is un-
constitutional. What the last leglsla-
ture sought 10 do in the passage OF the
Galbraith law was held void by the SUI
preme court in an opinion rendered
shortly before noon Monday. The court
grants the writ of mandamus applied
for by AttorneyGeneral Bird, To com
nel the state board of assessors TO
reconvene and fix a rate for the taxa
tion OF railroads that shall be deter
mined by using the assessed value OF
the general property of the state as
the devisor of the total amount OF
taxes paid. This rate is $40 per
81 900 instead OF $l4.61, which the as
SCISSORS found by adding $500, 100000
TO The assessed value of the state on
the theory that general property was
not assessed at cash value.
Justice Montgomery wrote the opin-
ion, which is concurred in by other JUS
tices who sat-McAlvay. Grant, Us
trander and Hooker
The opinion quotes The contention
of Acknowledgement Bird that Section
II of Article II of The constitution pro
vides the manner of ascertaining the
rate and that the act known as the
Galbraith equalization law was IN con
nict Herewith. The railroad compa-
nies contended that the constitution
does not forbid the legislature from
| providing for ascertainmcnt OF true
| basis of taxation.
The court drew distinction be-
! tween that contention and the position
of the board of assessors, which was
that the constitutional provision itself
conferred upon the board the power to
determine according to its best 1udg
ment what the average rate levied on
other property OF the state may be.
1T Is not 10 be denied that the his
tory of the state has shown in the past
many attempts TO evade The constr
tutional provision for The taxation OF
property at its full cash value. read-
The oDinion. Nor is it intended 10 i'm
ply#that if the corrective was intended
TO be conferred By this constitutions
provision upon said board that they
have acted unreasonable or improper
". Indeed ii may be said that with lhl
statute before them. prima facie, valid
It called for their &C l along lines
they followed and for icir ascertain
mont according to thei best iudgmen
OF the real assessable value rot TN
stste."
But the court says the question o
the policy of the constitutional Prov
sion is not the controlling question, bu
the provision itself which il quotes
There is little room for construC
ton" continues the court The in
: portant words are the rate Of taxation
upon such property shall be the rat
T. which the state board OF assessor
shall ascertain and determine is tn
average rate levied upon other proper
~ upon which al valorem taxes ar
assessed for state. county TOWNSHIP
I school and municipal purposes.
y ut is very clear that this exclude
/ all idea that provision might be mad
O for ascertaining an average rate D
taking an account OF property upo
which no taxes are assessed. To do s
y would be 10 do violence TO the lai
>. guage employed.
The opinion SAYS further mat IN
: question is not an intricate or dill
cult one The language employed
this amendment is plain, clear Englis
II requires no Interpretation.
e The opinion is in line with final a
d. ton already taken by the state boar
b. of assessors. which anticipated such
il decision from the court. The apple
ton of the rate of Sl7.40 TO railros
valuations of 500, 100000, instead
:. The rate of $14.61, means an incrca
= i'm taxes Of about $500, GOO for he ra
roads.