New-York tribune., 1886-07-07
EOTdLIZING STATE TAXES.

The city authorities are likely to be deeply dis
appointed in their expectation of obtaining fair
| treatment at the hands of the Democratic
Board of State Assessors. This Board, which
is now making its annual visit to New
York and Brooklyn, has shown itself a
careless and incompetent body In the
face of the indisputablc evidence laid
before it last year by the citys legal repre-
sentatiyes, showing that justice TO New York
in equalizing the State taxes required reduc-
tiCn CT 81 81 ,03S, 900 in the aggregate assessed
valuation of real estate, the State Assessors
not only refused to make the reduction, but
ADDED 112,14S, $50 to the city's Valuations
This made difference of about $500, 900 in
Il c amount { taxes kvied on this city. When
brought before the Supreme Court IT, give
their reaso ms for this extraordinary action, the
State Assessors could give none, further than
the claim that they exercised a discretion
vested in them by law. They asserted that
they had some information in written MEM
oranda and diaries Of the individual mem bers,n
but this was not preserved. A State Board
" mich assumes to equalizc taxes, Overrulng
the sworn returns of the Local authorities and
adding $S0D,000 to the taxes of this city, and
formation contained in private diaries which
were not preserved, is, to say the least an ex-
traordinary body.
The Board of Equalization is composed of
the Attorney Ger eral, State Treasurer and
others in addition TO the Assessors. Bnt this
body acts wholly on the recommendation of
the Assessors, and last year adopted without
change the report prepared for it by the
Assessors and printed in advance of the
meeting. 1t is significant that with single
exception that report made a reduction in
the aggregate valuation of each county
which had a representative on the Board while
1t added $ll2, l4S, $50 to that of New York.
which had no such representative No facts
were PRESENTED by the State Assessors nor
considered by the Board of Equalization to
Justify this method of "equalzing" taxes II
is something gained to have the Supreme Conrt
condemn it as a violation of the spirit if not of
the letter OF the law, though the Court refused
10 grant the writ OF ccrtiorari asked by the city.
The legal proceedings IN thi 5 case, even if the
Court Of Appeals sustains the action of the
lower court, are likely to resalt in some benefit
to the cause of Justice. 1t will at least stir the
Assessors up to greater sense of their duties.
and during their visit to New-Y rk this wear
perhaps they will be willing to spend more than
a half hour in the Tax Department, finding ont
the Just relation between the assessed and the
market values OF property in this city.
The practice of "cqnalzing" the State taxes
so as to compel this city to pay about onc-half
OF the whole sum raised for State PURPOSES
cannot be successfully defended. Ncw-York
has less than ne-quarter of the population, and
less than one-iifth the representation in the
Legislature The sworn returns of the
transfers Of real estate in every county of the
State, gathered at great expense by this city.
prove, rs shown elsewhere in to-day's TRIBUNE.
that there are only nine counties in which
the average percentage of assessed 10 real
values is as high as III New York. The
average in the entire State is 63 per cent.
while the average IN this city exceeds Il per
cent. And yet the State Assessors "eaualzedu
the valuations by arbitrarily adding "A large
sum to New-YOrk and deducting a correspond
ingly large sum from other counties, in at
least one of which the proportion OF assessed
to real valves was only 40 per cent. When the
people of the State come to appreciate the
loose system followed by the State Board in