The daily gazette., 1877-03-12
March I2. IS17.


"THB BOARD OF REvIsIoN."-The
complaints against the '.Board of Re
visionp of the City Council, have been
loud and frequent; and its abolition
would be hailed with pleasure by our
citizens without regard to party. 4 aid.
The bill now before the Legislature,
gotten up by the City Solicitor under the
direction Of the City Council, provides
for abolishing this Board, and the form
ing Of a new board, constituted of three
citizens, freeholders, to be chosen by the
City Council, one of whom shall be
chosen by the minority. al urq3s sai F
This bill may have its objections; but
we prefer it to our present system and
we prefer to try it rather than hold ON to
the Board of Revision, constituted Of ten
members of the City Council, who after
ward participate in that body as a Court
of Appeals. At present our property is
valued by sworn Assessors their work
goes under the supervision of a Board Of
Revision who without ever seeing or
viewing the property, alter and amend as
they please the work of the sworn officer;
and citizen has no chance in the So
called Court of appeals.
There is scarce one man in ten that
would not rather take the assessment
made by the Assessors than that which
comes from the "Board of Revision" I"
some of whom give the subject no atten-
ton, and are satisfied simply to go to the
Council chamber and sit an hour and
draw their pay. And we believe they set
about sixty nights on an average. d.
The main provisions of this bill are
found in the OLD law in the ordinance
book, from which it is made up. The
assessors and collectors now sell property
for taxes, and put men in Jail for non-
payment. Considerable property was
sold last year for taxes and threats were
made to putmen who were impudent and
uIreasonaDle IN jail.
The last objection to the bill which
abolishes the old "Board of Revision. y
that we should have expected to hear is
that it requires the assessors to be free.
holders. Now we should like to know
what right man has who is not free
holder, to force himself in to value the
property of other people. To say the
least he would have great deal of as.
surance; and would show much more
wisdom and modesty, if he would pro
pose to wait until, by his industry, perse.
Verance and economy he found out whai
ltcost to secureproperty. That there are
many excellent men who own no proper
ty, and some who are better qualified fo,
once than those who do, is not the ques
ton. We believe it far more necessary
that assessors should be freeholders, thai
that members of the City Council shoulc
be freeholders. There are too many mel
who want office who have nothing u
show for their previous work. These wan
men OF property to go on their bonds
and some of them care very little after
ward whether they prove honest or moi
We should be very suspicious of me
who took exceptions to bill because
required an assessor to be a freeholde,
Now, we do not care SO much abou
this bill as we do to get rid of the oil
Board of Revision" and to retain thj
Board. is one of the causes of the obje,
tions to this bill. As to the increase
the number of assessors, we care ver
little. 1t is likely that the city,will 500
require more assessors, and it is Doubt,
whether the property of ten thousar
people is not enough for one man
assess if he does his work properly. O.
greatest objection, as we see the bill no,
is that it makes the assessors appointe
instead of elective officers. We shou
prefer that the people of the several d
tricts should each elect one from tn,
midst by ballot.