Arizona republican., 1906-01-21

the aggregate valuation of all the property of the territory. That decis- ion disposes of the first contention of counsel herein, under the demurrer. The petition, however, discIoses q state of facts not involved in either or the propositions hereinbefore dis cussed, which demands consideration. The statutes confer no power or au- thority upon the territorial board of equalization to make an original as- sessment or property, other than rail- roads. It may equalize assessments which have been made by tie various assessors and county boards Of equali- zation. In doing that it is not ca1le1 upon, and, indeed, it is not permitted, independently. to fix valuations. Its power is restricted in this regard to the determination of the scale of valu- ation that should be adopted in order to harmonize and equalize assessments heretofore made, to the sole; end and purpose of securing reasonable unl- formity Of valuation throughout the territory. In most instances this scale of valuation can, perhaps, best be as- certained by determining the average assessment made of any particular class of property which, from its ma ture, Is or an approximately uniform value in the various counties of the  In the latter instance this average could be ascertained from the aD- stracts by dividing the gross valuation put upon range cattle by the number of cattle assessed. Tn some instances the abstracts may disclose that a valu- ation has been adopted by one or more of the counties which appears so nearly in accord with the general standard of valuation fixed throughout the terri tory, both as to the class of property to which it belongs, and as to other property, as to warrant the territorial board in adopting such scale of valua- ton for the purpose of equalizing the assessment of such class throughout the territory. The board must find the proper scale of valuation from the as- sessment rolls of the various counties either by adopting the average assess ment to be ascertained therefrom, or by adopting a valuation already fixed in one or more of the various counties. To hold otherwise, would in effect be the recognition in the territorial board of Q power of assessment, in addition to that of equalization. If the scale of valuation be not fixed by ascertaining the average assessment in the various counties, but is found by the adoption of one already fixed by one or more
 
 aggregate valuation of property in all the counties might in some instances be increased, and in other instances de- creased. The latter result is speciff- cally prohibited by statute; the former is not. Therefore, if the assessed val uation of any class returned by one CT more of the counties be adopted as the standard of valuation for the pur- pose of equalization by the territorial board of equalization, such method can cniy lawfully be adopted where the result is not a decrease in the aggre- gate valuation of all the counties, as returned by the boards of supervisors. Whichever be adopTd. the territorial board must fix a standard as to such class, and this standard must be uni- formerly applied to each county by raising the assessments which fall be- low such standard, and by lowering assessments which appear to be made in excess of such standard.
 Applying this rule to the case be- fore us, we find that the petition dis closes that a uniform standard of val uation was either not determined, or not applied by the territorial board of equalization to the various assessments throughout the territory by its order made in August, 1905. For instance. the board found that in Cochise coun- ty patented mines were assessed at less than two-,one- -hundredths of one per cent of their true cash value: that in Graham county they were assessed at ten per cent of their true cash value The assessment of patented mines was ordered to be raised 1900 per cent in the former county, and 400 per cent in the latter county. The result of this order is that in Cochise county pat ented mines are required to be assessed at thirty two- one -hundredths of one per cent of their true cash value. while in Graham county they are ordered to be assessed at 50 per cent of their true cash value. Again, in Pima county the finding is that patented mines were assessed at ten per cent of their true cash value, while in YaVapai county they are found to be assessed at three per cent of their true cash value The board raised the assessment in Pima county 500 per cent and in Yavapai county only 100 per cent; thus fixing the assessment of patented mines in Pima county at 60 per cent of their true cash value, and in Yavapai coun- ty only six per cent of their true cash value. In two counties. namely. Mari copa and Pinal, patented mines are found to have been assessed at 50 per cent of their true cash value, and these are permitted to stand, without in crease or decrease. It is possible, therefore, that the board intended to fix as its standard of equalization the assessments made in these counties If so. tno same standard should have been applied in the other counties. so as 10 mak> uniform assessment throughout tie territory
 Again, range horses are found to hax 6na Mohave, Navajo, Pima. Pinal, Santa Cruz Yavapai and Yuma at 70 per cent of their true cash value; in the county of Cochise at 50 per cent of their true cash value; in the county of Coconino at 65 per cent of their true cash value; in the county of Apache at S5 per cent of their true cash value; while in. Gila Graham. and Maricopa counties range horses are found to be assessed at 100