Arizona republican., 1906-06-30

a
 of the legislature to exempt for a tim, certain interests from taxation, neither do l say that I approve it-it is no here a matter for discussion. l only mention it here as it might appear tC
 be an exception to the general rule state that all property should bear its just share of taxation.
 And while the subject of exemptions
 from taxation has suggested itself ]
 want it impressed on us that We can neither legally nor morally extend the ! exemption directly or indirectly, a single inch beyond that expressed by 1 the legislative. enactments. We cannot ! by construction, or by practice enlarge
 the scope of the exemptions expressly provided for by the egislatures-they are matters purely of legislative pol icy, and not for the determination of
 the administrative department of the 1 territorial government.
 If the assessors found and listed all property within their respective coun . ties, subject to taxation, and valued
 and returned II at it's full cash value
 there would be no need of 9 county board of equalization. for the value would be capitalized.
 But in practice it has been so often found that property is not valued by the assessors at it's full cash value" nor does the value fixed bear an equal ratio to that fixed upon other property in the county. Hence the necessity for q reviewing board whose function it IS to equalize these values; and this board is the county board of equalization.
 It is the duty of that board to ex- anime the individual assessments and where inequality of valuation is found whether of the same kind of property or of different kinds. to so adjust them that they will be relatively equal The rH of valuation to govern the county hoard is the same as that governing the assessor, that is the full cash value" And if upon examination of the lists returned by the assessor the board should rate all property at it's full cash value" there would. of course. result absolute equalization.
 There is tendency, conscious or un conscious, on the part of every com munity. which is called upon to make it's contribution to the cost of the gen eral government, to undervalUe the property Of the owners of that com munity Hence while the local board may have capitalized as among individ- uaIs listed il may nevertheless. ignor< ing the rule of valuing at full cash value have fixed upon ratio of Va u- atiOn either much lower or much high CT than that fixed in other communi~ ties. This has proved to be of such ire Quent occurrence that e territorial board was established to euualize, not among individuals as the county board does. but among counties. Again if the territorial board should observe tha rule of valuing at the full cash valus'' just equalization wou'd q take place, ie relative equalization had been observed by the local board.
 The territorial board cannot deal with local assessments-it can only deal with classes of property. I can not impress upon you, gentlemen of the county boards, too strongly the importance of a just equa lizatfon by you of the individual assessments. Whatever of inequality you may have in your local equalization must. in the very nature of things. if changes are made by the territorial board be not only perpetuated but exaggerated.
 Let me illustrate. Of three given acres of ranch property one acre Is worth ten dollars. another twenty dol iars and another thirty do lars. But suppose these acres have in fact been all assessed equally. and in the aggre- gate at only thirty dollars. Now if it mould appear to the territorial board that like property in other counties was assessed at sixty dollars, that is. one hundred per cent higher than in our supposed case, then it would be the duty to raise the valuation as returned by the county board. Now note the result:
 The Sl0 acre was assessed at $10. ihe s2O acre was assessed at S10. and the 530 acre was assessed at S1O, making the aggregate of the three acres $50.
 Now if the territorial board makes. as it is in duty bound to do a raise of LOO per cent the list would stand:
 The Sl0 land raised to $2O the S20 land remains at $2O, and the $50 land is in fact lowered to S2O. making 100 per cent raise, or S6O.
 It is apparent at once that one acre of land is assessed at twice it's value one at it's actual value and the third 1t only two-thirds of it's value And | his wholly without fault of the terri l -orial board-indeed without any power | )n its part to remedy the palpable in i justice; not only that, the territorial | board could not know that it was per | oetrating an injustice. And just such l inequalities do occur wholly beyond the | power of the territorial board to pre- yent.
 Let me illustrate again. Let us sup | pose that there are ten patented mines ! n given county. Let us suppose that 1 line of them are undeveloped and un- and that one is enormously md continuously productive. Suppose hat they are returned by the assessor l Lnd left by the local board at one housand dollars each; that is ten pat nted mines assessed at ten thousand | Lollars in the aggregate and it is so eturned to the territorial board; sup 'ose it is made to appear to the ter itorial board that the mines in that ounty are worth one hundreds thou and dollars and the raise is made to hat sum; then the result is: Ten hines at $lO,OOO each, aggregate s1O0.- O.
 There is no distinction, you see, be-