Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1912-08-29

/
own county by the highest vote &C
corded candidate for supervisor
The same system has worked well
elsewhere and we agree with Chair.
man Hickey OF our county board Of
supervisors that It would he well to
give It trial In Arizona
But the Constitution provided that
the legislature might substitute any
other kind of State Board of Euualiza-
ton. This opportunity for immediate
ly changing the constitution was not
10 be overlooked, so the legislature
created the State Tax Commission to
be appointed by the governor. and en-
powered TO camp on the trails of the
different county assessors and tell
them what TO do. The governor APP
pointed a gentleman from Maricops
county, another from Yuma county
and another from Cochise county to
constitute the Tax Commission. Mari
eopa and Yuma are not classed as
mining counties Their long suits are
alfalfa and cantaloupes.
Theoretically the state Board OF
Equalization is the last administra-
tive court of appeal in tax matters.
II is supposed TO review the action
of subordinate assessors, county
boards and even of the state Tax
Commission. A state board consisting
OF the different chairmei of the coun-
ty boards of supervisors would clearly
be dominated by the representatives
OF the mining counties and might not
agree at all points with a Tax Com
mission dominated by the representa-
tives CT Yuma and Maricops. TO
remedy this defect the Legislature
abolished the State Board of Equali-
cation as created by the constitution
and provided new State Board Of
five members. three Of whom are the
members OF the Tax Commission
In other words the Legislature
packed the court" by making n ma
iority of 1t consist of those tax com.
missioners from whose decision tax
payers are supposed to have a right
of appeal to the State Board of Equal
ization. Thus it is arranged that the
tax commission tells the county as
SCISSORS what to do and if the taxpayer
wants to kick he goes to tie State
Board which turns out to be the
same body whose decisions he is APP
pealing from. This IS a great dea!
worse than the old territorial courts
system under which the supreme
court was made up of the various dis
trict judges whose decisions were re-
viewed by the supreme court. But tina
Judge who tried a case did not hear
It on appeal, and although we used to
hear a lot about appealing from
philip drunk to Philip sober" that
system was ideal when compared with
the present appeal from the Tax
Commission to the State Board Of
Equalization. In fact a member of
the commission frankly advised a tax
payer that he would best take what
the commission offered because the
commission sitting as a Board Ct
Equalization would not reverse itself
This highly progressive plan of in
vesting the Tax Commission with
power unlimited, unrestrained. and
non-retTieyable encountered only one
obstacle: Its proponents could not
abolish the county boards Of supervis-
ors. While the Tax Commission might
tell the county boards how to equalize
tax assessments, It was equally with
in the powers Of the county boards to
do as they pleased. even to the point
OF telling the commission to go to
Phoenix or Yuma or any other super
heated region. Several boards saw tit
to exercise these high Derogauves
when they discovered that the mining
industry had been made the goat upon
which the legislatures sins of extrav-
agance were to be cast. This has
caused considerable uprosr particu-
larly in those counties which have no
mines Of their own but make living
selling things TO mines in other coun-