OCR Text |
Show H SUPREME COURT SAYS STATE TAX LAW IS VOID. 1 State Board of Equalization H; Is Limited in Its Power 1 of Assessing. Ciunty Assessor Has Jurlsdlo-Hon Jurlsdlo-Hon Where Property of Cor-i Cor-i piratitn Is Within Ciunty, i H guestion Aroso Out: of Merger of H . Local Light and Street Cnr H ' Companies. H H jf Kreat importance is the deolslon H I if 1 rendered toy the Stato Supremo H court yesterday in the proceedings H Instituted to determine the con- H1 fltltulionality of section 2513 of the Re- H, I vised. Statutes of 1899. relating to the H jurisdiction of the State and the cwmty 1 Eoardei of Equalization in the assess- ancnt of taxes. The section Is held to H be unconstitutional and the County Ad-Hj Ad-Hj sc6sor upliold as the lawful assessor of H I nil property not extending beyond the H county's boundaries. Hj How the Case Arose. W ' The question llrst arose with the mer- H' fcer of the Utah Light & Power and the H Consolidated Railway companies. Under H the section above mentioned the prop- H crty of tho railway company had been H nssossed by the State Board of EquoJi- H nation and the property of the light H' company had been assessed by tlic H County Assessor. After the consolida- H lion the County Assessor asked County H Attorney "Westervelt for an opinion H upon which of tiie authorities should Hj; levy the tax. Mr. Westervelt held that r the section was unconstitutional. The present action waH afterward brought by the City Attorney In the Supremo I court. The title of the case la State of Utah, ex rel, Salt Lake City vs. Ben-Damln Ben-Damln R. Eldredge, County Assessor, and Salt Lake county. The plaintiff asked for an alternative writ of prohi-bltion prohi-bltion to prohibit the County Assessor from assessing certain property situate H in Salt Lake county. The City Attorney (maintained Uiat the authority to make 1 the assessment was lodged' in the State M. Board of Equalization by virtue of the I Amended section, i'513, passed by the Legislature in 1S99. Thia section reads os follows: Tho Law Knocked Out. "All property and franchlseH owned by railroad, street railway, car, depot, telegraph and telephone companies in this State must bo assessed by the Slate Board of' Equalization as hereinafter herein-after provided." As this section appears in' the Revised Statutes before amended it contains I after the words, "telephone companies," l ( the words, "operating in more than one county," but did not contain the word "depot." The Insertion of the word "de- I CPot," which necessarily entailed omlt- I ting the words, "operating In more thnji I one county of the Slate," is said to have I toeen made for the purpose of taking the I taxing power from "Weber county in re- card to the Union depot at Ogden. I' The amendment conflict: with this I Portion of section 11, article 13 of the j.( State constitution: I1 What Constitution Says. 1 1 "Until otherwise provided by law, I there shall be a State Board of Equali-I Equali-I station, consisting of the Govornor, State I j Auditor, State Treasurer. Secretary of 1 1. State and Attorney-General; also in each county of this State, a county Board of Equalization, consisting of the ( Board of County Commissioners of said I county The duty of the State Board of '' Equalization Jdiall bo to adjust and I equalize the valuation of tho real and personal property among the several 1 counties of the State." '' The opinion, written by Justice Eartch 1)1 and concurred in by Chief Justice Bas- I ldn and Justice McCarty, touches the I main point in the following paragraph: i What the Judges Say. ' "From the foregoing considerations It 1 ia clear that the Legislature has no I I power, under the Constitution, to au-i au-i thorizo the State Board or Equalisation j . to assess or value property, for the pur-poses pur-poses of taxation, the Bltus and opera-' opera-' i tlon of which are wholly within one I I county. In so far as section. 2513 and CS, I session laws, 1SP9, undertakes to confer I such authority upon that board, it 19 in h I contravention of the Constitution, and l Is null and void. The Legislature, how- ! ever, as this court decided on previous 1 occasions, has power to authorize the State Board to assess, for rcvenuo pur-I pur-I poses, property situate partly in ono county and partly In another, or operated oper-ated in two or more counties, becaueo j the assessment of such property may j fairly be regarded as' an act of adjust-Ing adjust-Ing and equalizing tho valuation of ijj, property between different counties of j, tho State. The views herein expressed I are not opposed to, but are in harmony l -with our former decisions, under the Sj Constitution, on tho subject of taxa- Ej tlon." fij The decision will be interpreted as fdvlng "Weber county the authority to I? assess the lax on the Union depot nnd tho County Assessors in all counties th 1 authority to levy on ,the net proceeds of I mines as well as all property not ex tending or operating In more than one county. |