Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1914-12-17
SYNOPSIS Of ST. H CUNTS
OPINION n TX COMMISSION CASE

The opinion In the case of the
state tax commission W. Esmeralda
county. notice Of which was wired
out by the supreme court about q
week ago. was fled for record satur-
day afternoon. The opinion by
Chief Justice Talbot, cohcurred In
by Justices N6rcross and II Garran.
Is lengthy and covers the points at
issue extensively. sIshe. main con
tention or the Esmeralda county
commissioners was that the reduc-
ton as ordered by the tax commits
sion would leave a deficit Of approx
imately $4,000 on December l..
1914. and that while adding the in
creased valuations-the tax commits
sion increased the taxable property
in the county by over $4,000. 600 Ito
the assessment roll as ordered by
the commission, the revenue for
county purposes would not be suffi-
Client for the Current year, il levied
at the rate fixed by the tax commits
sion, $1.16 and would about meet
<the requirements Of the county as
fixed by the county commissioners
at $1.55 per 500 valuation.
In denying the writ of mandamus
to compel the commissioners to COM
ply with the order of the tax COM
mission, the court admits the right
OF the commission to raise valuations,
but quotes, among others. section 1913,
Revised Laws, an act passed in 1891,
empowering boards OF county commits
sioners to reduce or raise the county
rate If the levy previously fixed did
not produce sufficient revenue to meet
the county needs, or to reduce the rate
If excessive, and section 1927 of the
Revised Laws, relating to taxation in
Esmeralda county.
The opinion admits the tax com
mission may direct boards of equali-
Zation, assessors and sheriffs as to
their duties, but no where specifcal-
ly provides that the commission may
direct boards of county commissions
ers in regard to fixing or changing
rates or otherwise. The commission
is not authorized to make any direc-
tion or order for reduction Of the
rate fixed by the board, unless the
language of the tax commission act,
which states that the Commission is
hereby empowered to exercise gen.
eral supervision and control over the
entire system OF the state,n is ae-
cepted, without giving any limitation
to these words by the ones following,
I "and in pursuance whereof shall pos
sees the following powers" If from
the above 1t may be assumed that the
county revenue system Is included, I'll
would have to be admitted that un-
der such general Ian guage the COM
mission would be empowered to fix,
raise or lower the state rate, as held
in numerous cases. 1t is apparent
that the legislature, II 1t intended to
confer so important function on the
commission as increasing or decreas-
ing of the county tax rate after it had
teen fixed by the county commissions
ers. would have specified such power,
as 1t did In relation to others of less
Importance.
The court further holds: "ln the
absence of clear showing, the re-
peal or modification of statutes is
not presumed, and where there is a.
general or special statutory provis-
ion relating to the same subject, tie
special provision will control" ut
has been urged that under the CON
stitution the legislature could not
confer upon the commission power
to fix the tax rate. the members be-
ing appointed and not elected by
the people. Following precedent,
the court does not determine consti.
6Issseoeuun ueuM suonBsnb Is uo1n1
for decision OF the case. Appeal.
-4------C C-----~------.S
ELOODlN6s WEST HITu a