HUMOR.

Wasted Energy.-The young lawyer had opened his office that very day, and sat waiting for clients. A step was heard outside, and the next moment a man's figure was shilouetted against the ground glass of the door. Hastily the legal fledgling stepped to his brand new telephone, and, taking down the receiver, gave every appearance of being deep in a business conversation.

"Yes, Mr. Smith," he was saying, as the man entered. "I attend to that corporation matter for you. Mr. Jones had me on the phone this morning, and wanted me to settle a damage suit, but I had to put him off, as I'm so busy with cases just now. But I'll try to sandwich your matter in between my other cases somehow. Yes, yes.

All right. Good-by.

Hanging up the receiver, he turned to his visitor, having, as he thought, duly impressed him.

“Excuse me, sir," the man said smiling, I'm from the telephone company. I've come to connect up your instrument.Case and Comment.

A Short Charge: In the old days Texas Judges instructed to the point. A Mexican was charged with stealing a horse. Upon the evidence having been heard, the judge instructed as follows: "Gentlemen of the Jury thar's a Greaser befors you, and a hoss missing: you know your duty. That's all."

Dear Apples.-A man was sentenced 30 days for stealing two apples. A by-stander exclaimed: "Goodness! Thirty days for only two apples? That's nothing," said another, "Adam took only a piece of one and was condemned to hard labor for life.'

Laws Delays. After argument a rural justice said: I'm a sorter mixed on this har case, am, I'll preserve my decision." "About what time, judge," asked one of the lawyers, "will you dish out your preserves?"

"Thars no tellin'," replied his honor.

I've got a sight o' plowin" tew do, an' erbout ten acres to fence in. Jest take the pris'ner ter jail till fall."

THE

OKLAHOMA

LAW JOURNAL

EDITED AND PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY

D. H. FERNANDES, GUTHRIE, Oklahoma.

VOL. 12.

May, 1914.

THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF

No. 11

TAXATION IN THIS STATE.

By Hon. Ernest E. Blake.

(This Article is continued from the April No. p. 388.) quired, in those states where laws are not directory merely.

Tax proceedings closely follow ordinary Judicial proceedings with which we are all familiar.

The demand of the Assessor for list is the summons to the Tax Court, the tax roll is the Judgment, the Warrant of the Clerk is the Execution, and the Treasurer executes the writ-carry this simile through the proceeding and they are familiar. The taxing officers can no more fix against a party a valid charge without demand and notice on him, than can a court give judgment without notice. The furnishing of the list and valuation by the taxable is the fixation of the basis on which the ad valorem governmental charge is to be imposed upon the taxable, and under the law of all jurisdictions (except in Okla.) that valuation, except for the slight and incidental changes of equalization, is fixed. A special notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the fixation of any value other than that put by the taxable. The rate, is fixed by the mandates of the legislative appropriations, as published in the Estimate, which can not be exceeded, or their purposes varied. Late vs. Frisco.

As to equalization--and here the grevious evil of the State abides.

Each state provides in somewhat differing terms for the creation and authority of Boards of Equalization, and, under our county assessor's law of 1911, our county board of equalization is directed to meet "for the purpose of equalizing taxes not valuation over the county, (an unprecedented duty) and complaints "shall be determined by the Board in a summary manner." This language is not altogether consistent but on that we need not descant as it is true of all the statutes. Unless an assessment as returned by the assessor is complained of in a written and specific manner the Board of Equalization has no jurisdiction to act on it. (This is not the law in Okla.)

Out of the eighteen years of territorial existence, it was law for seventeen years and four months that the State Board could not increase the Grand total of the Counties of the State. In 1898 the territorial Supreme Court by reversing Gray v. Styles, held that the Board could increase the State aggregate. Eight months later, the people, shocked at the possibilities of this decision, through the legislature recalled that decision and said that it should not; that was the law at the adoption of the constitution, and laws of 1909.

The Supreme Court Re McNeal, first decided that the Board could raise the aggregate on the authority of the Bardrick case and the Wallace case, as being that "contemporaneous interpretation and practice, in the light of which the constitution and legislation was framed," but when the court's attention was called to the fact that the rule in those cases was repudiated eight months after announcement, and that the Court was right on the law of "contemporaneous exposition," but was wrong on its history, the court abandoned all

grounds of its first decision, but it maintained its position and sustained the state raise of 50 per cent. Also the right of the Board to effect this raise by affecting one kind of property in a county differently from any other kind in the same, or any other counties. A good example of this is shown in Oklahoma County where the assessed aggregate in 1911 on real estate was doubled. Automobilets, always a liability were trebled, and bonds and warrants simple necessities of capital life were decreased 75 per cent., from the assessed returns. (This latter fact can be excused on the ground that they may have been state warrants or bonds.) Notwithstanding, the State Board by resolution then expressly disclaimed to affect alike every holder of property in a class, by these class changes, the Supreme Court in the Carrico decision held that it so did and ipso facto, and automatically, the valuation of every piece of property in that class, or county affected, was as by percentage affected, and this regardless of the violation of the constitutional rule of uniformity, and cash value limit. It is easily perceptible that the doubling of all elements of an assessment class, like real estate, lots or merchandise would double the disproportions, if any existed, between individual assessments in that class, and also put many of those over their actual value. As for instance, if two pieces of property of similar value were returned, one erroneously at $100.00, and the other honestly at $200.00, they would be but $100.00 apart, whereas, if both were double one would be $200., its fair cash value, and the other $400.00, double its value, and they would be $200.00 on a double distance apart; thus, the honest lister is doubled and punished for his honesty, differences are magnified, and perjury becomes self defense. Correspondingly, if one of the holders in the bond

and warrant class happens to have a county bond worth $100.00, and another had a state warrant worth 30 cents, reducing both of them 74 per cent, would give to the county bond holder one-fourth his just burden even though the state warrant holder might have reached par at $.07. The contention was made that such action taxed some owners above the actual cash value of their property, but in the Rumph case as handed down the court held that courts had no jurisdiction to remedy such effect, and that he had a remedy by appeal from the State Board to the Supreme Court. In the Garfield Bank case it was held that the complainant really had no cause of complaint because the State Board by its action had really equalized him though he were insensible of it. This is the first recognition in the state of the efficiency of the "absent treatment," as applied to Tax proceedings; and, while we doubt if the taxable had fully "prepared his mind" for it, or fully recognized the consideration thus unknowingly received from the State Board, we are quite sure that every lawyer in the state has enjoyed the progressiveness which distinguishes this decision from all others. The court said in the Carrico case that the statute (7373), saying that the State Board should by order direct how the rolls below should be adjusted to meet these variations in aggregate, was a dead letter; and that when the change in the aggregate was made there was nothing for the County Clerks to do but raise or lower horizontally the value of every piece of property in that class, as by the percentage system. Heretofore courts have held that the legislature must prescribe the method of distributing the changes made in equalization, but our court has largely dispensed with legislation. In another year or two, in tax matters, we may not need any legis