Show POWER IS I IN TH THU THE U T Sf State Board of Equalization Can Cannot Cannot not hot Assess SemiPublic Corporations SUPREME COURT SO HOLDS Matter Iatter Was Made a n Test Case and andIs andIs andIs Is of Importance to 10 toMI I All MI Concerned The Flie state board boud of equalization hrH brat hr not nol tho the power to maki the tho on Ott tho the property of ot street tre t railway elec dec electrio trio light and anti other like hIke corporations when whon such property does docs not lint extend outside tho the boundaries of ot the county 1 wherein It Is situated such power be III In III tho the county ot of the tho county Tho rho Ih above Is I the effect of or nit an opinion which hns has been handed down by the supreme court In the case of ot UH tug Ill State of ot Utah ex rel reI rd Salt Lake Inko City v vs 1 Benjamin U n I county count asses assessor sor and Snit Salt Like Lake county count The court also holds that section 2313 2513 2 13 of or the tho see sea clou laws titus of or 1899 Is 19 unconstitutional for tor forthe forthe the reason that It Il gives KUcs the thc board boord of equalization powers to ninke tho the as ae on nil the tho property of or rail railroad road toad street railway car depot tote tell tel graph telephone companies In the tIle state without regard to whether or not 1101 their property extends Into Inlo more than thanO one olie O IC county I i When the tho Utah t Power com corn company compan pony pany pan and the tho Consolidated Hallway company merged Into Inlo one company County Count J raised the tho question nil aft to whether he or the tha state I board of oC equalization C the I of at tho the new now company Before oror the the property of or one of or ortho tho the companies had hod been assessed by the county assessor and altO Hint of or the other by br the tho hoard board of oC equalization County Count Attorney Westervelt was wall asked for tor or an nil opinion on ott the ito matter nutter and held that 2513 13 of or the laws 1 of or 1119 unconstitutional and that the county or should make the thu assessment on oIl 01 the tho property of nil alt corporations which lie within the boundaries of oC the thu th county count In order to 10 test teAt the ha City It Ity Attorney hey Dey I e on ott behalf of or the tha cIty elt fileda flied 1 a petition In the supreme court for a n writ of ot prohibition to pro 1110 prohibit hibit County A from celia making the assessment on such lIuch ty te contemplated In section 2513 2511 it IH is upon this writ of ot prohibition that thal tho the opinion of ot the supreme court ouli vats rest ren rendered dered Ic cc 1 Section of ot the laws laive of ot 1599 which the court holds Is unconstitutional Is 18 lit Its follows All property and franchises owned by b railroad street railway car ctr depot dellot telegraph and telephone companies In itt Inthis this state must t be he assessed by 11 I tho lie state Mate boon board of equalization ns as herein hereinafter hereInafter after Before that hint section infixed by b lie tho Legislature le the statutes A of ot the lie state provided ld that lint the tho board of or equalization lion tion should OIl assess R the property of nil all railroad street cur car telegraph telephone companies operating In Itt moro more than titan ont ono county count of oC the state It II was evidently el the ito Intention of ot who the adopt Ion of or the lie amend amendment meat ment to till this section faction of ot the lie statutes s to 10 take the power of at the Ogden union depot out of the hands of ot the lie county count of or Weber county nit place It within the Jurisdiction of ot the hoard board of equalization Hence tho the word depot dellot lIs Inserted l and the words operating In more than titan one ono county count of ot the state were TO omitted l The opinion of ot tho the supreme court which was WS written by hy Justice concurred In Iti by hI Chief Justice lbs lias kin and Justice Ju McCarty In part the tie foregoing It Is 18 clear that lint the Legislature tins has no power hotter under the Constitution to 10 ait ati lie tho state board of or 1 to assess or value property for the lie pur purposes poses POMOS of ot taxation tho the situs eltus and opera loll ot or which are wholly within one county In so III far rill as ns section ills 2513 2 13 and W CS 6 sessIon Henlon laws 1809 1899 undertakes to 10 confer such ouch authority upon that lint hoard board It Is III III In contravention of ot the Constitution ami IB iii null itoh and volt void old The Legislature Je I how however ever eer as all this court decided 1 un ott pre occasions has power to authorize thu th state board to 10 noses tot for revenue pur posits property situate partly In ht ono one county partly part In another or oper opet operated In lit two to or ot more counties because the Ibe assessment of or such lIuch property may fairly b hI s as an act of adjust adjustIng Ing lug and nn equalizing tho lie valuation of ot between different counties of or ortho tho the state sinh The views herein lre MII ore are n re not opposed to but tut 1 ul are arc In harmony with our former fornier decisions under I tho the Constitution on the be subject of ot taxa taxation Ion tion I |