Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-01-22

tine bOaru Oh EquailZallOu NdS Ueeu pre-
vented from equaizing assessments gen.
orally; that under the new system the
State is at the mercy, first of the Assess.
ors, second of the taxpayers that whether
the assessments are made by the first or
the second the interests of the State sp-
pear to be equally subordinated and that
notwithstanding all the gigantic intel
lectual labors of the Constitutional Con-
vention, it is but too apparent that some
three or four hundred millions of property
continus to pay no taxes whatever.
This is the outcome of the first essay
under the new revenue system. The Board
of Equalization calls upon the Legislature
to come to its relief and to amend the rev.
enue law. Especially it wants some pro-
vision which will render the Assessors in
telligent or conscientious. That they are
not so at present, the Board thinks itself
bound to conclude from the manner in
which real estate has been assessed. With
etho SSluOui
equaled and never surpassed, the Assessors
have reversed the new constitutional rule in
regard to cultivated and uncultivated land,
and have in practice evidently assessed the
former by the latter. But the most re-
markable result Of all is the graduation of
the assessments in accordance with the
increase in size of the farms. Every
where the small farm has been assessed
higher than the large one. In every
county the value per acre of ten, twenty,
and fifty-acre farms has been rated
higher than that of the hundred, two
hundred, four hundred, six hundred and
forty. acre farms. There is nothing more Gu
rious in statistics than the regularity
with which these results have been reached.
In one county the farms of ten acres and
under average $500 per acre, while those
from 400 to 640 acres average So per acre.
As the Board remarks, there seems an
q air of enchantment about estates of many
acres, that steals away the senses of
Assessors and ineapacitates them from
performing their duty" Precisely SO,
but the fact remains, enchantment or no
enchantment, that the new rule has thus far
failed, and it is to be ascertained whether
the principle underlying it, or the method
In regard to the latter. it must be
admitted that thus far the plan of
electing these officers has not resulted
well for the State. 1t is notorious
that property of all kinds escapes assess.
ment. In some cases this is unavoidable,
as in that of personal property; but real
estate cannot be concealed, neither can it's
value be hidden, and if, therefore, the
Assessor fails to rate it fairly there is no
escape from the conclusion that he has de-
iberately preferred not to do his duty. In
deed, it seems necessary to inquire seriously
whether it can be expected that any rev.
enue system can be fairly tested SO long as
the method of appointing Assessors makes
the strict performance of their official duty
incompatible with the conservation of their
own interests. 1t is undeniable that the
Assessor who proceeds without fear or
favor is certain, under existing circum-
| stances, to destroy his own political pros
poets and to defeat his own election. He
is called upon therefore for an exhibition
of disinterested public spirit which the
State has no right to expect from any of
its employees, and in fact it may be said
that the office can never be filled satisfac-
torily to the electors unless the holder of
it fails more or less in his duty to the COM
monwealth. This is one of the cases in
which individual and aggregate interests
clash hopelessly. 1t is the interest of all
the people that every class of property
should be equally taxed. 1t is the interest
of each individual to escape taxation if he
can. And as it is by individual votes that
the Assessor is elected, he cannot afford to
subordinate the individual to the aggregate
interest. The result is that fair and I'M.
! discriminating assessments are rare, and
that personalproperty is ridiculously under
assessed.
As regards personal property, it is one
of those classes which can never be reached
unless the State is prepared to 90 to great
lengths. The Romans were very prscti-
cal people, and realizing the futility of get
ting at the value of intangible property by
mere inquiry, they gave their Assessors
the power to infict torture in order to
reach the truth. Under such an arrange.
ment it may be possible to assess personal
property, but as it cannot be supposed that
the people of California would submit to
the introduction of the rack and the
thumbscrew for the purpose of collecting
taxes, it is to be feared that all efforts in
this direction will prove useless. At pres
emit it is the taxpayer who assesses his
own personal property. This is an easy
method for the taxpayer, but it is so IN
businesslike and preposterous, as regards
the state, that it is wonder the absurdity
should be tolerated. We do not require
a report from any Board to inform us
that under such system two.
thirds of the personal property of the
community must escape taxation. Prob
ably one-third of the property is quite as
much as pays taxes. And it is equally
certain that this must always be
the case. More inquisitorial methods
may be adopted, yet without producing
any improvement. The system of Massa-
chusetts, for example, is the most rigor.
Gus, searching and elaborate extant yet
it is stated that forty per cent. of the
personal property in Boston escapes taxa
ton. The fact is that it is folly to i'm.
pose taxes which cahnot be collected with
some certainty. Every such attempt
violates Adam Smiths fourth rule, that
the method of taxation should be
such as to waste as little as possible.
Methods which require an elaborate
machinery for assessment, yet return no
proportionate revenue, are clumsy and ex-
travagant. Moreover, as long as they are
|