Arizona republican., 1906-01-21

| or block, or otherwise, according to | the system of numbering in the town; second, the Improvements on all such land and town lots; third, his personal property of every description, or prop erty held by him or under his con trol as an agent, or in any fiduciary ca pacity." Paragraph 3S61 makes 1t the duty of the assessor to prepare an assessment roll, and prescribes what | it shall contain: He must set down ! in a separate column "all real estate taxable to each inhabitant, firm, in cOrporated company, or association, ! described by metes and bounds, or by common designation or name, if sit uate within the limits of any city or any incorporated town, describing by lots or fractions of lots; if without said limits, giving the number of acres as nearly as can conveniently be as- certained, and the location and town ship where situate; all improvements upon public lands, describing as nearly as possible the location of such inn provements."
 Thus, we find that the legislature has classified real estate for the pur- poses of taxation, as follows: Town or city lots, improvements thereon, land outside of towns and cities, inn provements thereon, Improvements on public lands; and nowhere in the stat utes are taxpayers, assessors, or boards or supervisors required, either in ex- press terms, or, as can perceive, by reasonable inference. to make or to enter upon the assessment rolls further or different classifcations. Their full statutory duty is performed when they have placed upon the roll real estate and valuations, classified as the stat ute directs. For the use of the terri torial board of equalization, the clerks of the county boards of equalization are required by paragraph SS77, each to make an abstract containing the whole number of acres of land, other than town or city lots, listed in the county, and the valuation thereof. and the value of the Improvements there on; the total valuation of town or city lots and the value of the improvements thereon; the whole number of miles of railroad within the county, and the value thereof;'' and the whole number of horses, asses, cattle, sheep, swine, and goats, with their respective total values; ''the gross amount of all other property" And by the same para graph it is provided: "but the terri tOrial board of equalization is author ized to diminish or add to the above list and to require such different or further matters to be returned as it may deem advisable" It will be ob- served that paragraph SS77 preserves the classification of real estate here tofore indicated.
 The majority of the court seem to rest the power of the territorial board to increase or decrease valuations by sub classes of real estate, upon two propositions: First. that there is no ,,,,1 1I,;I Ixs ( ing upon the rolls the description of land beyond that required in the stat ute, so as to designate its particular character; and therefore. having done so, the board may act upon such sub classification; second, they find auth ority in paragraph 973 for the boards of supervisors to require assessors to sub classify real estate upon the rolls, and in paragraph 3S77, power in the territorial board to require the county boards to make return as a distinct class, of any sub-classification appear ing upon the assessment rolls.
 I can see no force in the first conten- tion. It is leaving to the various as- sessors to say upon what sub-classid- cation the territorial board shall act. Next year they may choose to do only what the law requires of them: place upon the assessment rolls lands outside of cities and towns by acres, without reference to whether they are cultf- vated or grazing, mineral or non-min- eral. The clerks of county boards ot equalization can only abstract what the rolls contain. Therefore, the ter ritorial board cannot, under such con- ditions, know from the abstracts that there are any mineral lands in the ter ritory. I think I may without impro- priety use for purposes of illustration an allegation appearing in the petf- tions for writs of mandamus now pending in this court, involving the proceedings of the territorial board. It appears that for the year 1905 but two of the assessors of the various coun- ties placed upon the assessment rolls, as a separate class, improvements upon patented mines. It is a notorious fact that such improvements exist in near ly, if not all of the counties of the ter ritory-a fact that is probably within the personal knowledge of every mem Der of the board of equalization-ye the assessors were clearly within the law in returning them simply as inn provements upon land. and the board prevented from equalizing such assess ments in the various counties.
 Conceding, as found by the major lly OI lnG COuIlS lndl LHe SupeTNlSOTS may require the assessors particularly to describe upon the rolls the charac- ter of lands, it would seem to be dis cretionary pawer. It is reading too much into the statute, to say that paragraph 3S77 gives the territorial board supervisory power over the coun- ty boards in the exercise of their du- ties regarding the preparation of tax rolls. I construe the provision, "but the territorial board of equalization is authorized to diminish or add to the above list, and to require such differ ent or further matters to be returned as it may deem advisable" to empower the board only to require the clerk of the county board to abstract by classes the property included within the gross amount of all other property" I do not understand the majority opinion to hold that the territorial board may require the county boards to require assessors to so describe lands upon the