The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1917-02-10


supreme court during the past week
in sustaining the action OF the state
tax commission In Wayne county will
undoubtedly have much effect upon
this case.
Wayne county has been particularly
hostile TO the tax commissions med
ding with valuations In that county.
Tho Wayne people succeeded In turn
ing down the report OF the commission
| before tho state equalization board
and getting an equalized value out OF
the board much below that which the
commission said II ought TO be liked
nj. In order not to get turned over
again, tho commission went to Wayne
county and appraised every piece OF
property in the county Just as they
aid In Iron county. Tho result OF this
appraisal was q great increase In the
taxes OF that county and Immediately
the city OF Detroit and the county as
a whole sought legal procedure where
by they might turn over the commits
sion.
The case was brought by the coun-
~ and handled by the board OF super
yisors. the argument OF whom was
confined chiefly to four points. all OF
which we're completely over-ruled by
the supreme court. These points
were:
First. the petition on appeal from
Supervisor Bristow. OF Greenfield
township, upon which the state board
eoualized, was not In compliance with
the statute and therefore gave the
state board TO jurisdiction.
Second, that the hearing on the ap'
peal was delayed beyond the time al
lowed by law. and the action OF thu
state board Is Of no effect.
Third, that tho action of the STATE
. board was arbitrary. unlawful and II
: legal and amounted TO bad faith.
81 Fourth, that errors in addition an'
, cross addition amounting 70 nearl,
81 600, 900 were made by the stat
board In tho city OF Detroit and tina
these errors wero carried into III
8 equalization.
o State Board Upheld.
a Many years ago. Justice Cooley. i
e deciding a case in which. technical OF
jections were raised TO the work
q one OF the assessing boards, said:
Q "The time has gone by. IL 1t eve
il was, when the proceedings of taxin
d officers arc TO be criticized with M
y croscopic nicely and the exact tim
and method of every step examined
d detect a departure from the law. how
l. ever insignificant or unintentional."
p While this has been the underlyin
law OF the state II has never been giV
"a en- force az TO the state tax commits
1t sion until last Monday. and JustiC
10 Stone, OF Marquette, who wrote n
ID opinion, after quoting Cooley, adds:
"The possibility of collecting sta
revenue depends upon the obseryan'
A. OF this policy. II is true that the p
N tition was brief. and the facts mig
n we'll have been stated with more ella
10 grafton, yet We think it was sufiiciel
20 to confer jurisdiction upon the boa
\, OF state tax commissioners, tc act
IN the premises"
AS TO the complaint by the Wayl
A. county supervisors that the figur
a used by the state board for the Ct
IN OF Detroit. were full OF glaring error
an hastily made. etc, the court insis
~ that such argument has nothing to
"a with the case as II Is presented
ma them.
oil 1T should be borne in mind IN
~ the state board was here dealing wi
the equalization OF the real proper
n in Wayne county to fix basis for {
"a apportionment OF the state and cou
a. ~ taxes" says the court. Neither [
a state board nor this court is here CO
no cerned about individual assessmer
=, In the city OF Detroit"
ne FINNS USE THE UNDERGROUND