Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1907-02-20
WOULD ANNUL
 ANDREWS ACT

should not lc taxed, as thsi vould bo double taxation.
 About tbc oniy thuc there is in bill No. i- that is definite and certain ls thnt they orc making provisions to ? licv" themselves from tlc payment of their iu-t proportion of taxes. there by creating thcm-clvc. privileged class by legislative act.'
 Under tho Andrew. aci. any party dissatisfied with tho yaluc of his property %. fixed by thc board of sup. 'rv'sors, sitting as % board of ,quiliza- tion, can take nn appeal from the ac. iion uf thc board. hut before an ap- peal can bc taken thc party who is dis. satisfied must pay into 'hc county treas urcr inc full amount of thc taxes levied and asscsscd on ihc valuation ac fixed by ihc board of supervisors, and the fec of slo. \ copy of The records of tho board of supervisors in relation to such assessment K filed with the clerk of the ''AHAlN ''NiAs NNNl NNf fNHf UlilNl IN heard by thc court without jury at its first session thereafter. unless both par. ties. inc county and the appellant. agree in writing to a continuance. Al mch hearing the court must hear evidence of the actual cash value of the property. taking into consideration its character. Vl,tI.r ftpt.r,.,..I ..r ....t .t ...........t ings. and if ii is productive. ths ar:ount of its average annual yield. and from thc evidence shall determine thc actual cash value of such property. At the time of ihc a~.cs,mcut Inc burden of proof is on th" party appealing. to prove to thc satisfaction of Inc court that the va'nc aS affixed bv ihc board is erroncuus or excessive. 1T it is de tcrmincs by the cour, that the amount of such assessment is excessive. iudg mcnt K rendered for the party appeal ing and against the county. together with interest at the rate of per cen per annum. and for costs. but shoul the court determine that the actual cash value K greater than the valuation fixed by the board. judgment must bc rendered in favor of the county, against the appellant for the taxes dne upon the valuation of such property as dc. icrmined by the court in excess of tho amount fixed by inc board. which jndg wcnt hccomcs n lien upon nll the real and personal property of the appellant in the county; such judgment k final, there being no appeal to the supreme court o' the Territory or any other court
 The court is expressly prohibited from reducing the valuation of any property below the fair cash value .nf the prop cr,y.
 1 Since the Andrews act took effect nm examination of the records in the dis trict court show that there has been but very little litigation over tay"s. The Il crty fixed by the board of equalization K too great. and rather than run tho risk of having their property assessed at it's actual cash value, the companies find it cheaper to pay than Co litigate.
 lt K only fair to Councilman Doran to state that he IS not the author of this bill. nor does he foster it. He in troduced it by request. and nt no time has he declared himself in favor of it- passage. On the other hand, after carefully analyzing it- various features, he states that he will not vote for tho bis unless it Is radically revised. and it. bicctionnblc features eli iiuatsd.