The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1875-05-06
ST.. PAUL, April 20, 1875.

Hon l. Donnelly, Editor Anti-Monopolist:
DEAR SIR: The action of the State
Board of Equalization in 1874, was, as
YOU are aware, in obedience to the tax
law of the same year, which requires the
board to make such additions to under
valuations and deductions from over valu-
ations as will increase or decrease the
valuation for each county to what the
board believe to be the true and full value
Of the property assessed. A reference to
the State Auditors published report.
shows the increase to have been pretty
general, only nine counties having re-
furncd . valuation of land near enough
to the boards estimate of the true and
full value to escape an increase of
the board. One of these, Hennepin,
had itself tribbled its old valua.
ton and WAS the only one
whose valuation of lands was decreased
twenty per cent by the board.
l find no act of the Legislature on file
n this office affecting the valuation Of
uroperty in 1874 as increased or acted
mon by the State Board. Among the
laws. however, is one reducing county
and other local taxes in certain cases
where improper levies were made by the
local authorizes in contradiction oil law,
and possibly Misrepresentation ofthe ma
ture Of that act may have led to the sup
position that the Legislature reversed the
action Of the State board. enclose
copy Of the set from which it appears
that instead Of determining upon the
aHount of each tax, the county authori-
ties levied their taxes in the shape OF
percenkogea ofthe .ucludtion--thatis is, in
some counties-thas causing :
levy Of taxes beyond the amounts
needed, when the valuation
was afterward increased by the State
Board. Now the law limits the collection
Of county and LEGAL taxes to the amount
Of the percentages on the original r0lu-
alton, renting the per centages on the
increase. There is, however, no intorma-
ton at the Capitol showing the counties
to which this relief act applies. or whether
Cottonwood is one Of them. From the
State Auditors report should rather
Judge that the latter county is not one
Of them. The tables in that report, il
they show the tax levies correctly. EN-
brace eight or nine counties Cottonwood
being sone-that for county revenue
under the general law. levied tax Of ex.
actly ten mills on the dollar Of valua.
ton IS esualizcd by the State Board.
And theugh they levied an additional
county poor tax, 50 that the ten-mill tax
is seemingly excessive under section %
of the general law, which limits the max
imum Of taxes for ''all county expenses
other than for roads and bridges, and the
peyment Of the interest and the principal
Of the debts Of the county "te
ten mills ON the dollar Of valuation. :
-pxesumption is that said County Revenue
fax uas levied under that section and
after the actisa Of the State Board.
L may further say. in the absence o.
Secretary Jennisen, to whom you address.
your request for information. that pre-
sumo he would be prepared 70 give N
ether explanation concerning the action
ofthe State Board regarding the increase
ofvalaation for Cottonwood Or any other
county than what is shown BY the pro
csedings Of the Board, and that the Board
acted conscientiously, in good faith. &C
oording to their best judgment and infor'
nation On the subject. As for the cas,
cited IN Nr. Becjamin's letter IA sector
.sBeesed It d. 3OO-sold shortly 2fter fol
45OO.) he en- scarcely mean it = fairly
showing the ratio Of assessment to valu1
OF land 10 this county. Every acre p