| OCR Text |
Show jv-XOW TUEY CAX D.O IT!.. 5 Tlie Cjmnlj Cjnrt Mar Lrsallf 'lAnrf tbe lTho! Asemrot. ATTORMCr GILCHRIST SAYS SOi Attorney C K. Gilchrist yesterday yester-day filed a document with tlie Salt IjV County board of equal-iratiuiij'ih equal-iratiuiij'ih which he tabes a ioint antagen!-tlc to that aumed by Sir. Hall, which was uulisheJ in Sfon-day Sfon-day c-enlng's DliEHKT Xews, and says that theloarJ. in its lawtr to cerKct atiy valuation, miy reJuce tbe entire arsessment, if It sliould deem such a correction necessary. Here is Mr. Gilchrist's argument: To Vie Chairman and Cattlemen cumpwtwa'ptc Onunly Iknnl of J-sjuatttattun of Suit Laic Uuun-tj, Uuun-tj, Ctah Gentlemen Tlie opinion of the honorable gentleman given to your honorable body which appears In the public prints er this city this morning, sutlnz In round term tliat liiu county Hoard of Equalization Equaliza-tion docs not otse the pjnerun-derthelaw pjnerun-derthelaw to lower tr scale down the general a&sa'mebt roll of Salt lMfee Couhty for the current year, 1 S00, seems to demand of me a reply: at any rate, I shall mate a reply, since I introduced the argument and injustice I am entitled to thus cle tbe debate. At the outset it is worthy of remark re-mark that this mooted question hat thusfar been debated iu candor. It appears to be an appeal t reason, njt prejudice, and hence ou let it continue in like mood. It may be admitted at this point Uiat tlie statement made by me that the Territorial Hoard of Equalization, Equaliza-tion, by rea vn of V non action, is fuiKlua, U true, at ieal the joint is not and can not be disjuted. It aj-ivatsalso aj-ivatsalso to be ukcuas grant id that tlie previous argutneut msde hy me that the County Hoard of Equalization Equaliza-tion under the laws of lSWjioMifced a twc-fold iower. vie ' first "To determine all complaints com-plaints raaJe in regard to as;- I value of property' and Secoui "And tliey sliall have lower to change and correct an; valuation by ad Jing thereto or tik-lug tik-lug therefrom," Is also true, since all quote from the samu statute and prattlcally iu the same language, tleuce it stands that the statutory premli-es are identic.!. In tlie first place, from tlie Mtir of the Ia, If the letter lie plain, there is no room left for con-truc-tion,it Is only hen ambiguity occurs mat e-jii-truotion by i-ours and other legal Iwdi -s 's r rmltted; construe a law Is make plain tiiat hich is not plain, but the door of construction is closed when the language of the law giver Is plain. He has sKikeuaiiJ courts and legal b)dies niu-t follow, subject to one consideration, viz : Is the st-Jute constitutional? V. here the nnm or necessity of their bringing into dicu slou tlie decisions of tlie supreme court of the State of California nn I tin .., r apjals of New York, or even Judge ivjlcy ou Taxation? They and ach of Licit, debate the question o f instruction, not tlie sharp ietl.r of the Law. I.Uu8ie. Tue two cases referred to in the California repjrts aro-e outof a c.u-Jlict c.u-Jlict lietweeu the State barJ of e jalization and a similar county V buarl.anj iu order to harmonize the lowers of the boards the supreme su-preme court had tj resort "i construction con-struction and when examined crill-oilly, crill-oilly, these c-ved will be found to lie agaiust the principles intended for ou the other side of this argument. The New York case Is still woijc ou the same line. It may t-c remark I .rem rally if the logic of this New York ca-e lv carried out literallv there cannot be one dollars' worth f tsx collected In Uih this vear "by tlie process of law." The New York case was. where tlie tar roll haJiutlieeu properly certified, and the collector, when lie undertook to foree the collection of die tax found liim-elf, iu the ojinlou of tlie court, "a naked tresu.r." Sweet reflection this when iniper-fev-t lax r.illn.cre Into the bauds of collector. Again Cooley on taxation tax-ation is apjiealci lo, iae .IS. Let us sec what lie say: "rile abate neut may be total or it may be par-Ual." par-Ual." -When the tax is Illegal ope Hurt oMrjed to apjdy tut an alat - nent, but he may out st tlJe Ux wheu attempt is made to collect it. (f fraud is chargei tspjjty may Interfere. In-terfere. And the action of an ai -iiellate bjarj is IieU list t be b'nt ingwheuthe board itself Ins disobeyed dis-obeyed the law to the prrjudlces of ,arties." It alsnapjieaij that the records of the board mmt tliow affirmatively af-firmatively that the -statute has Ix-en complied w Ith. Cooley on Taxation, Tax-ation, page 53). Hat it may be contended that the foregoing does not satisfy the law or the conscience of tlie board. AI! I-gally cou-titnted boards are sup losedlobe guid 1 by aconcirii-tious aconcirii-tious and free interprelition of tlie Law; at least this is sa until the; contrary nllinuativelr apjiears. eclal pleading or rophlstry does uot satisfy the con-cieuee of the law, whether the case occurs in jourt of law or- uliy. Tills prin- lple is what Iord Mansfield an I Chief Justice MaiJiall liotli contended con-tended for until they both oroke the iron bonds of strict construction, ind breathed thespiritoftternalju--lice aud equity into all Angkjjuns-prudeuce. Angkjjuns-prudeuce. It is contended tliat this county nard has pawer " to lncrcesj or lower the Individual ass ssments," etc Indeed, is this so where wmared by the letter or reason tbe statute of J Stil? It will be re-nembensl re-nembensl that SL I'aul got old King Agnpia on tlie hip because he tried lilm according to the law aud smote him contrary to it, aul Uieonly way this rascally oU king fwild get out of the. dilemm l was to -end I'aul to Home, where the Km-K-ror made quick work of the poor Apostle by beheading iiim.aiid then put him in an unknown grave, if crave at alL 1 1 w ill be remmbered that Agrippa told I'aul that he (Agrippa) had no jurisdiction, otherwise he w ould let him ofl. So piculiir tilings happened as long ago as the day o! I 'aul, Agrippa and even C.-esar. Not less peculiar U this new star in the constellation of the tax statutes, called individual. It must be a meteor in tlie heavens of tlie recent statutory con-trure. Tlie statute says the Hoard of Equalization Equal-ization shall hate lower to change and correct any valuation, either bv adding thereto or deducting therefrom. there-from. Now . does any sane man .belie .be-lie e or suppa-c that any iersunor iawierisguing to (Vruiil the interpolation inter-polation or insertion of Hie word Individual In-dividual after tlie word any? The latter w ord is generic, and applies to the whole. It is to be observed tliat the lower of this board reaches to "any valuation," not on romplalut, but of iU own motion. On the other hand, suppose this board should take up each item in tlie tax roll and make it individual. If tlie interpolation and argument le good, then the rawer of the loan Is ample to do this and eacii ''individual" ''indi-vidual" would have adequate relitf, and there would he no necessity for any one to low his, or her. heaj in grief at burdensome taxation, or consult doctors of tlie law about that magnificent word "individual.' Tliis "Individual business' can be illustrated as follows: The scene is Southern Utah. The bishop's Recount got mixed. All believed him to be honest, but his books could not be made to balance; hence a committee was appointed to examine tile fatal accounts and books, and yet tlie deficiency still existed, much to the annoyance of the good bishop. Hut the books must be balanced. Jience, the committee seized u-on this grand balance idea, and in order to balance tlie account, they made the following follow-ing entry: Credit, bjrbalanco.cuh, which is not on hand and cannot be accounted for J-32j.65 On the same theory tbe word "Individual" "In-dividual" must be struck into the statute to make the argument hold together, and hence poor old Salt J Lake county must be made tbe 'scaptfcoal nd be behtader or crucified cruci-fied head dovVnwards. Men ana brethren, tuch things ought not to be. |
