The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-06-09
CONFLICT
 IN THE CODE Again the Unexpected
 Turned Up, DEALS WITH TAX MATTERS Confusion Between Commissioners
 and Assessment toard. Attorney General Garber. However, Says Matter Is Not Irreeoncilabie and That Intention of Legisiat-
 ure should Be Carried Out.

The State Tax Commission thought a few days ago that they had discov- cred a conflict between certain sections of the new Code and so informed Att tornev General Alex M. Garber. That official. in an opinion handed yester- day to the Commission. admitted that such conflict exists.
 The conflict Is between two sections of the Code defining the duties and powers os the State Tax Commission :. They are Sections 2223 and 2250. The latter section mentions the State Board of Assessment in connection with the powers of the State Tax Commission, and. if construed strictly. would have made the actions of the Tax Commis- sion in some lines subject to the review of the State Board of Assessment, whereas 1t was the clear intention of the Legislature to make the powers of the two Boards entirely independ- ent.
 The Attorney General informs the Tax Commission that the mention of the State Board Of Assessment in Sec ton 2250 was an inadvertenca of the Codification Committee. What was in- Tax Commission whose powers were therein outlined.
 Section 222a of the Code. was a codi- flcation of an act of the last Legisla- ture creating the State Tax Commis> sion, to whom were given the powers and authority that belonged to the old Back Tax" Commissioner. and moro authority was added. Such powers. as are well known. permit the ComInfs- sioners to revalue and reasseas any valuation put upon property by the County Assessors whenever. in their opinion, such raises ought to be made except when the valuations originally made have been upheld as just by a decree of a court of record.
 Section 2250 intended to enlarge tho powers of the Commission. It author izes the Tax Commission to make addi- tional assessments under certain con- ditions, and provides that if the valua- tion has been fixed in q certain manner such valuation shall remain so hxed for the succeeding tax year, with the further proviso "that the property re- main In substantially the same condi- ton as to Improvements, unless other wise ordered and directed by the State Board Of Assessment"
 The use of the words state Board of Assessment,H says the Attorney Gen erai, was mistake of the Code com- rnittee of the Legislature. Concluding his opinion on this matter. the Attor. ney General Has this to say:
 "It is not possible to reconcile the conflict between that feature Of the two statutes uidsr consideration. Section 2223 ia directed especially to the mat ter. whereas Section 2250 contains a mere reference to the power of order ing the re-valuation. Clearly under such conditions 1t is necessary to give effect to what was manifestlv the in- tention of the Legislature. though by so doing it may be necessary to sub stitute one phrase for another. The use of the words. the State Board of Assessment in Section 2250. is an evi. dent mistake. the intention being 10 leave that specific power to the State Tax Commission, where it was confer. red In direct and uneduivocable lan- guaga.
 The State Board of Assessments has never attempted to interfere with the work of the State Tax Commission. these being entirely different bodies. The former was created with specific line of duties. such being the fixing valuation on propety like that of the railroads, the telegraphs and long dist ance telephones. It was. therefore, not the intention of the Legislature to cause the spheres of action of the two boards to overlap.