Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-09-01


Clute was getting Il IN the neck on
all hands, and he had no desire 10
make n rr0undie-s ciaiiI- but Il was
maniiestly unjust TO tax national
banks OF AL their capital and not
follow the SAME policy With 'irUker
hanks.
Mr.. Ciute interrupte,iand claimed
that the statement read hy tae at,Or-
ney were not sworn.
The latter replied that he was not
there % waste time arguing with
the assessor. His statement was be-
fore the hoard. Mr.. Gilchri,t also
called attention 10 the written pro-
tests Of the Walker aud insisted
that valuations were excessive anu
should 10 reduced.
Caroline =. hyde objected to be
taxed on Sill for improvements
when she hat none.
e.. NJ. Cannon, representing
Angus VI. Cannon, stated that the
assessor hal MADE some errCrs in
assessing hrs properly which he
asked q be corrected. Clute's valuG-
ton on Mr.. Commons property in
block 3, plat 4, So, 800 was eXccs-
sive, as no had bargainei the entire
lot for Ssn, 900.
John II. Rumel, ir., owned a LOT
in block iui. plat \, which Cute
valued at Sqlll, while the county
placed Il n. $500. He claimed that
the city valuation was at least 5000
too high.
Vim. II. PprSs objected 10 Clute's
valuation Of Sii.9Jl on his lot in
block l., plat T., which was on n
side hill. The valuation in 1859 was
5000. The county valuation this
year was SSj1o, which he considegei
extremely high. He asked a rcduc-
ton in Ciutt's assessment, 8 he
could only view itas excessive and
unwaTr8utshlc.
Mn. Henry Perks thought Ciu;e's
valuation Il her bit on Centre Street
sil1l czcesslve % the tune q about
$500.
J. :. Tingry objected 10 Clute's
valuation on his I on North Tenn
pie Street o. S59l'. The county Va
iua,ion on the same was S8Sll.
G. y. Felt, in behalf u the estate
Of y. IT. Felt considered the valu-
alton Of si2,Oll on pats Of lots and
5 in block 81 plat \, excessive. Il
was more than IL could hc sold for.
and was several hundred Ier cent
above last years valGa'i1n.
Mrs. NJ. J. Shell, Protested ngains;
the assessors valuation % her land
at the corner Il North Temple and
First Wet streets.
irs. Lucy !. rhuFston objected
10 Clutc's valuation on her Main
Street property q Sj5, go.
Mrs. l.. =. Stevens thought the
assessor = valuation ufSI5, Jll on heT
property on Fourth South Street eN-
c-Ssive.
Joseph Bull considered the as
sessment on his 10; Ia the Seven
teenth Wand, excessive. His tax,
last year were SIS, az agaius- Sii
this year.
Joseph l.. Parks protested against
the assessors valuation Of his prop
erty in block :, Plat =, Of =, 10. lie
thought Ciu.e WIS On about Sj0Jl.
G. II. Hyde stated that Clute had
valued his IMPROVEMENTS at $500,
when they were not worth slul.
John Meyer, 81 the Tenth Wand,
said that Clute's valuation u $3.50
ON his little home was excessive.
Ellen f. Allen, Of the Twenty
fir-t ward, was assessed on real Is
tate valued 10y Chute at Si,3il. CLUE
was too high.
Real Estate Agent Lawson
thought Clut-'s valuation 81 Sl6, 800
on his lot in the Eighth Ward was
outrngeOusly high.
+. e. Paiten stated that Clute's
valuation on his property vas
$4,000 higher than the county
valuation.
=. \. CooTrr's lot Ia the Seventh
Ward was waited by Clute at $500.
The county made u 5000, and he
thought that high enough.
Th0mIs Bishop thought Clute
was or his bssr whes lac valued his
lot in the Nineteenth Wand at
$3.50. s
+. &. Holding protested against
the assessors valuation OF Sj1JI on
his lot in the Fifteenth Ward.
;. ID. Cady objected 10 the valua-
ton OF $500 on his lot as excessive.
q. +. HOwe's lot was valued at
$3.50, which WIS considerably more
than Il was worth,
Jane NJ. Young represented that
Ciute's valuation OF her property in
the Seventeenth warl was 81. 800.
as against Si6lJhy the county. She
considered. the county valuation
highsenOugh. "a.
L. r. Clark's lot was valued at
SIS, 600, which vas more than il
fair cash value.
II. II. BrOush called attention 10
the fact that ClHte-vnlued his pioI-
erty in the sixteenth Ward at 100,
while the county ASSESSOR fixed 1t at
y, COO. 40
Mary J. :. Auer, Of the Tenth
Ward, objected to Clute's valuation
on her lot OF Ss,000.
Emma &. Fenton's property was
valued by Ciute AZ 5, Ti0, which she
considered excessive.
v. V. Jones thought the city as
sessor was temporarily insane. when
he valued his PROPERTY at $50, 500.
The county valuation OF the same
property was 81,
Lucetta BenrJse OF the Ninth
Ward protested against the exces-
sive valuation Of her city property.
b. II. Schettler's property on
South Temple Street was valued AZ
$1,000. he considered this ex-
orbitant. q"
u. II. Caller tel,graphed from
Ogden 70 enter his protest against
Clut-'s valuation on his Eighteenth
Ward property.
William keyser thought the
valuation on his Eighth Ward prop
erty, $40, 800 was TOO high.
Margaret sharp protested against
the value Of her lot in the Nine
tenth Ward being inflated to
-, 100. AL.
The representatives of the estate
OF Hannah Morris protested against
their property being valued al $500. |
The county assessor valued It at
$500.
5. c. DaIlis, OF The Seventeenth
Ward, owned n 10; which CIute
valued at $50. The county valued
1t at SisOl. and he objected TO the
city appraisment-. r
". II. Foster though. Clu;e,s
valuation OF rs. O1o aB .his properly
was excessive. 80
ThsIsPFessniAuves q the es.sls