The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-08-24
he Is RAISING NED.
Clute's Assessments as Compared
With the County.
FRANK PIERCES PUBLIC OPINION.
7. l.. Williams Makes Kick in Behalf OF
Client-Indigent Persons Apply
For Relief

Only Mayor Scott and Councilmen VOL
stenholme, Pendleton, Lynn and Noble were
present when the city council met as a
board of equalization last evening. The
kickers were not as numerous as on the
previous nights. Elias Morris made Wig
orous kick over Clute's assessment of his
property, which included his residence on
Third West street, his marble works and
ware rooms on South Temple street. the
Pioneer roller mill and brick yard. The
county assessors valuation was about forty
thousand dollars, while Clute made it over
eighty thousand dollars Mr.. Morris said
it was ridiculous for the assessor
to go out and assess property
at boom figures. He had his money invested
in manufacturing enterprises, and was
doing what ne could to build up the city,
but such assessments would paralyze in
dustry. The valuation was outrageously
high, and Mr.. Morris stated that he would
be willing to turn over the whole works for
less than CluteS valuation and retire from
business.
NH. Kimball owned 3x11 in the Seven
teenth ward, which Clute valued at 1000,
while the county's valuation was $1,000 He
thought the city assessment was too high.
Hyram Wagstaff owned a lot which he
wanted to sell for $780, yet Mr. Clute
valued it at 81, 100.
Mr.. Morris asked that the property of
the Fifteenth Ward Relief society be ex-
empted from taxation.
Richard Collett objected to his lot in the
Nineteenth ward being valued at s., 500
Frank Pierce owns piece of property
in the Eighth ward, which the city assessor
valued at s, 100, while the county assessor
fixed it at $500. He thought Clute was
off his base.
T.. E. jacobson owns 21lx2O in the Sixth
ward which was valued at s., S25. He con-
sidered it excessive.
j. S. Bowers object cd to his lot in the
Seventh ward being valued at ST, 800.
T. j. Brown thought the valuation placed
on his lot in the Fifteenth ward, Sl6,640, ex-
cessive.
P. L. Williams, in behalf of Mrs Robert
Paterson, who owns lot in block 5s, plat
] B, protested against Assessor Clute's vaiu-
alton of So, $50 on the property The prop
erty was valued by the county assessor at
1900, and MIR. Williams insisted that this
was high enough.
Mrs. e. l.. Carlson, who owns lot in
block 119, plat A, objected TO the assessors
valuation of a, 100.
| The following communication was fled:
! To the mayor aud city council of Salt
Lake city, sitting as board of equalization:
Gentlemen-I desire respectfully to call
your attention to the matter of the valua-
ton placed on my property by the city
is excessive and unjust. In 1889, lot 5,
block 80, plat a, Salt Lake city survey,
was valued, with improvements thereon,
at s, 900 by city and county assessors. In
1890 the county assessor for this county
assessed the same lot and improvements at
s., 600, and personal property thereon at
$780, In 1890 the city assessor and collector
assessed the same lot and improvements at
$50, 900, and personal property thereon
at $780, This valuation by the city
assessor is, in my opinion, grossly
excessive and for more than the property
would bring IN the market. There are no
gas or water mains in that vicinity and we
therefore lack the conveniences that public
improvements in other parts of the city
more favored than this offer residents. /
am also assessed for S51t7 money than | am
supposed to have in my possession. The
facts were, had a mortgage on part OF
my farm in Sugar House ward, which 1,
sold. This money was paid me before the
assessment for this year could be made,
and have expended part OF this on the
aforesaid city lot and the balance on my
farm in Sugar House ward. This is clear
case of double assessment. ] notified the
city assessor of this and he said he would
strike it off the books. but it appears this
has been overlooked. | desire that you
take this case into consideration and strike
, from assessment nj roll the item assessing said
money and then you reduce the valuation
of said city lot to the same valuation as the
county asses sor has placed upon it, which
/ believe in all conscience is high valua-
ton on said premises.
Respectfully,
JOHN MCDONALD.
The following persons applied for relief
on account of poverty, etc: Mother
PREFER, Seventh ward, $1,000; Mrs Mary
Boyle, Twenty first ward, $3.50; Jane
Findley, Seventh ward; A. j. Bevan,
Ninth ward, $1,000; Ann Meyers, Ninth
ward, $3.50; Julia ISLANDER, Sixteenth ward,
$500 Mrs T. Hewitt, sl4.40; Caroline
Reese, Third ward, s24s0; NJ.
A. Snelmerdine, Eighth ward; Mar
tina S. Adams, Twenty first ward, $500
Juliena Parker, Sixteenth ward, So. 40.
S. Mclaughlin, Seventh ward.
S. S. Rogers, Twenty-frst ward, S10.24.
p Lynch estate, SIS.
Mary Boyle, Twenty first ward, $3.50
G. A Gillett, Ninth ward
The board will meet again tomorrow
evening at s o'clock.
BATHING SUTTSi BATHING SUITS!