Bisbee daily review., 1918-10-26

value in addition to that sum of S2.- 567, ,951.64
 The complaint alleges that the prof its above mentioned represent its prof it's iB the production of oil in Califor nia and in refining it and manufac- turing it's various by-products in the state of California, where plaintiffs properties are alleged to have a value of upwards of S40O00,000 Plaintiff claims that the effect of this action of the state board if sustained will he to subject its California properties to taxation in Arizona, also to place an unconstitutional burden upon its transaction of interstate commerce. in violation of the United States consti- tuition. It is pointed out that the great bulk of it's sales in California represented fuel oil delivered 10 Ari- zona consignees in California pursu- ant to contract made in California, and that all of the company's business in Arizona was a part of its transac- ton of interstate commerce.
 It is further pointed out in the com plaint that the laws of Arizona require property to be taxed at it's cash value and that there is no Arizona statute applicable to the plaintiff, authorizing the axaion of incomes or franchises. or permitting valuations to be fixed solely by a consideration of incOm-. It is further alleged that the Arizona constitution requires property of the same class to be uniformly assessed and that the effect of the increase complained of is to tax plaintiffs properties upon a different basis of assessment in each of the 13 counties in which it is situated and in each of the cities or local assessment dis tricts situated in those counties. as well as to tax plaintiffs properties upon an entirely different basis from that upon which like properties are assessed and taxed in the state.
 Cochise County Increase
 It appears from the complaint that after the state board had ordered the increase complained of it proceeded to distribute increase among the counties according to the proportion of plain tiff's gross sales in the several coun- ties. As result the company's prop critics in Cochise county, which were assessed by the local authorities as S43.9S0. were valued by the state board at S4SS.175.63. The properties in Pima county which were assessed by the local authorities as S35, 5,S30, were valued by the state board as SS02, ,S9697. The properties in Marico- pa county, locally valued at S70,025, were valued by the state board at S22.434.S2 The properties in Mohave county, locally valued at S7305, were valued by the state board at S112,591.- 04. The properties of the company generally consist of small amount of real estate, stocks of merchandise, storage tanks, motor trucks, tank wagons, horses, wagons, harness and office equipment, all of which plaintiff claims have been valued at many times their cash value.
 The taxes now claimed to be due on the basis of the action of the state board are alleged to be 46,16S1S. The amount as calculated upon the valua- tions fixed by the county authorities is S59477S. which latter amounts the plaintiff admits to be due and has attended to the various county tax col lectors. The tender being refused, the amount mentioned has been paid over by plaintiff to the clerk of the Uni ted States court.