Saturday news. (Watertown, S.D.) 19??-19??, 1914-07-16

Equalization Boards
Clash il Authority
Has me County board the pc~sr i
Eaualizs A,sessrhsnts AZ
tsesn ownsrs.
That's . question that Ii likely 70
;be referred 70 the state courts for
determination.
The county board, composed Of j,
Il Michaela tchairmanl Nj NJ. West:
fall James Paterson Andrew Rist-
vedts and Robert Schulz, has been sit.
gtips board Of equalization for the
past week.
Among other things according d
the custom and practice Of many
years standing, 1t has "equalized' al
between NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Ii . say.
In some cases 1t has raised the ASSESS
ment Of s certain property owner and
In other cases 1t has lowered the as
sessment In accordance with the
views Of the board. the idea being to
adjust the assessment upon the basis
Of equity.
City Equalization.
Before the assessors hooks were
turned over to the county authorities
thee ity commissioners, also sitting
as q board OF equalization, passed
upon the same matter. having raised
or lowered individual assessments ais
to the city commissioners seemed
equitable. IN the aggregate the pro
portion of changes has not been great
in either case, although numbering
many as whole.
The point raised by the city com
missioners involves the question 81
the right OF the county board to go
over precisely the same ground, and
to change the individual assessments
as returned by the city commissions
ers.
Must Run TWO GauntIets.
Both boards, passing upon individ-
uaI assessments and each claiming
the power to raise or lower Individual
cases. thus constitute 9 sort Of double
gauntlet for the property owners, who
must first appear before the city
board for the adjustment Of their re-
spective assessments, and then, hav-
Ing won In an effort to have the
assessment reduced, must likewise go
before the county board to prevent
the restoration of the original figures.
or possibly to seek to prevent an
increase over the original returns Of
the
Attacks the Law.
Fhe city commissioners maintain
the county board has no legal author
ity for passing upon the individual
assessments. The county board, ac-
cording TO the theory Of the city com
m~issioners. may modify the assess
ment ais between classes Of property
by either raising or lowering a GER
tain class, but lacks the legal power
to pass upon the assessment as be-
tween individuals with respect to the
same class. In other words, the claim
is made that the county board, while
possessing the power to increase OF
decrease the valuation OF any certain
class Of property, has no legal right te
increase the valuation of n mans
lot nor to raise the valuation Of an
other mans, but must confine itseIj
in its equalizing powers to increasing
or decreasing town lots as a whole
say It's Unconstitutional.
While the law creating the tax com
mission specifically grants to ths
county board the power to equalizt
as between individuals, 1t Is held tina
such section Of the law is ~uneonsti
tutional for the reason, among others
that the title OF the bill falls to in
dictate that such power is bestowed up
on the county board. the state consti
tuition declaring that no bill passed
by the legislature shall contain feat
ures not indicated In the title. The
title of the tax commission law, It !,
commended, does not indicate that an.
such powers are granted to the count,
boards as . section In the body OF tht
law seeks to confer upon them.
nnY rNrRK n M AcrI