Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1877-03-23
WHY GOV. PORTER DIsAPPR0VED
THE NEW ASSESSMENT BILL

Instead of amending the assess
ment act of 1876 and allowing iti
good features to remain in force,
the legislature passed a new law.
Governor Porter disapproved the
bill for excellent reasons. This is
his first veto this session. The
house passed the bill yesterday
over the governors veto by a vote
of 60 to 6, but it remains to be
seen what the senate will do. The
veto being a matter of interest to
taxpayers we give it in full;
Gentlemen of the senate aud house of
representatives-I return without sppro.
val house bill No. 400, entitled. "a bill
to be entitled an act to amend all laws
for the assessment Of property"
This bill adopts the same c~riteria of
value as the act of 1875; the same prin-
ciple of assessment is prescribed for
both, and the same general valuation of
real property must necessarily follow
under the new assessment. After a care
full consideration OF the subject, | have
failed to discover the practical benefit or
advantage to the tax payer by the pro
posed change. As a question Of econo
my, the argument is against it. | will
use the county of Davidson as an illus
t~ration, because | have been able to in
form myself officially as to the practical
operations OF the existing law and the
cost of the one proposed in that county.
Under the latter, it will ctst the tax.pay
ers OF the county named about 1880, ip
books, clerks fees, and fees for assessing
their property aud polls for the year
1877; for the same service under the act
Of 1875, it viii cost them about 1880, or
$4,000 less; and, from the most reliable
information.I can gather, | am Of opin
ion that if the bill under consideration
becomes q law, it will cost the people OF
The State $50, 900 more than they will be
required to pay under the existing
statute.
The several counties have paid large
sums Of money for the salaries Of as
SCISSORS and for the purchase Of books, as
required by the act Of 1875; if the pro-
posed change is consummsted this large
expenditure will have been wasted, and
the books, prepared for the counties at a
cost Of not less than fifty thousand dol
lars, will be Of no use whatever.
Under the act of 1875 large amounts
of property liable, but never before
listed for taxation, has been placed
upon the assessment roll by toe County
Court clerks, who are required to make
and keep a main assessment roll Of all
property assessed. with q notice Of al
changes Of Ownership. This roll viii
soon become Q condensed abstract o.
title of incslculable value to the vendor
and vendes Of property, and will supply
q convenient, cheap snd valuable char
acter Of information that cannot be
found elsewhere.
If the act Of 1875 is defective it can
readily be amended. Il makes provision
for 9 reassessmest Of real properly
NurlA lMPiVfcMGut1 dIt lEcAilftu "
FIRE, food or other casualty, and if it is
believed that the property Of q single
citizen bss been assessed enormously or
at too high s rate, the provisions Of sec
ton 2 can be enlarged and an oppor-
tnniiy afforded for the correction Of
errors at an insignificant cost to the
party sggrieved.
Section 4 Of the bill under eonsidera-
ton makes the district and ward asses
sors 3 board OF equalization. This was q
feature of the act Of 1873, and proved to
be inpractieable. inefficient and unsatis-
factory. Section 5 provides that " the
Quarterly Court shall have authority to
hear and determine applications in re-
gard to alleged erroneous assessments"
but does not determine when or at what
session Of said ceurt 5 hearing shall b.
had. This would involve the whole sob
ject in confusion, postpone the purpose
Of the bill and produce q necessity for
its Judicial construction.
JAMES D. PORTER
Executive ofica March q. 1877