Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-09-06
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.
Humboldt, Lake and San Francisco Coun-
ties Before the State Board.

day morning, and under oath stated that
the property of Humboldt county, both
real and personal, was assessed as high as it
should be, and an increase would be dis
eliminating unjustly against that county.
He had, under instructions of the Board,
assessed all property at its cash value. He
cited many cases of individual assessments
in confederation of his statements.
Judge Hamilton, of Lake appeared
before the Board on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of that county. lie said he
had been a resident Of Lake since 1851, and
thought no man was better acquainted than
himself with the assessable property of that
county. He said, in his opinion the as
sessed value of the real and personal prop
erty was fully equal to that Of any other
county in the State. In fact he was confident
that the assessment of the entire county
was in excess of what competent judges
would call its actual cash value. Lake
county, he said strictly speaking, was 4
grazing county. 1t was true that within its
boundaries are a few quicksilver mines.
Less than $4,000 acres of land was under
cultivation and that is the extent OF arabic
land in the county. In the county, incud-
grazing land available for taxation, and all
of that has been assessed at its full value
The personal property, especially live
stock is fully equal to that of Napa and
= ioining counties. If you assess 4 So 900
ranch for $4,000, then you must be assess
ing the climate, and climate does not come
under the head of assessable property.
The property is now assessed for all that it
could be sold for under any and all circum-
4 j.
elimination which the people of Lake
would regard as unjust and unfair.
If the State Board of Equalization exercise
the powers you now propose, then do away
with the County Boards of Equalization
and County Assessors. He said he voiced
the sentiment of the people throughout the
State when he said this Board was usurp-
ing power that did not belong to them. He
thought that the statements of the Asses
sors and County Boards submitted under
oath should have some weight.
He was asked ifhe did not consider some
property in his county assessed too low.
He replied yes in his opinion there were
several eases; but he did not think all the
taxpayers should be punished for their
acts
He was then asked why he (the Chair
man Of the Board of Supervisors, sitting as
rs Board of Equalization), did not raise
the assessments in those cases.
He said some had been raised when aft
davits were filed by taxpayers but the
Board themselves assumed no arbitrary
powers. In many cases the values were
prospective, and he was of the opinion that
the Assessor was the best judge of its value,
and the judgment of any resident of Lake
county in that matter was better than that of
any member of the State Board of Equali-
zltiOn.
The controversy waxed very warm when
the members of the Board criticised the ac-
ton of the Supervisors of Lake county, and
the Judge became very indignant and de-
tended his people with considerable
warmth. He said that the members of the
State Board had visited his county and ex-
amined the deeds in the Recorders office
He said they would find deed recorded in
which the consideration would be 5000.
In that transfer there was probably i'll
cluded $1,000 of personal property that was
not mentioned. The Board then would
jump at the conclusion that the $1,000 was
for the land alone.
SAN FRANCIsco's ASSESSMENT.
At the afternoon session of the Board. E.
T. Pond and Charles H. Burton, members
of the Finance Committee Of the Board Of
Supervisors, Assessor HOlZ and two of his
deputies, MessrS. Messages and Maloney,
appear on behalf Of San Francisco county
On Monday the Board Of Supervisors of
San Francisco passed the following resOlu-
tons:
WHEREAS, This Board has been notified that
the Honorable State Board of EQUALIZATION pro-
pose to increase the valuation of property on the
assessment book of this city and county tor the
year 1881; and, whereas such action in the
opinion of this Board, * wholly uuju>titiable
and is not aud cannot be based upon a thorough
and intelligent examination Of said assessment