New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-10-22
ASSESSING AEAL, 1ST4TE
THE pAsrs on WINCH zHr Work y DONE

f---A-ss>
THE nAers on WEIGH T1sr WORK y DONE.
n,rrrnrxcr OF OPINION AZ 70 WHETHER
% OR 80 TO y rER CENT OF THE FULL
MARKET VALUE - THE USUAL
axESArn ALLOWANCES "-wrT'
xEssEs BEFORE THE rAs-
e SET COMMITTEE
.. ....,. cnmmittes On cites YESTERDAY con.
.,,,,.S a. ,aSs testimony shout the administration o.
.nn IA, D.nArtmsnt TIE COMMITTEES did . nsfu Gays
.n.t sl,,,ns hoth forenoon ana afternoon. Tux Com
rSs.,onsr THOMAS L. rsitnsr, who has been In omoe
Sor seven years having been appointed by Mayor 5os
tor N. sixvsars, term, and reappolnted oy AVor
Grant was hs Hrst Witness Mr. WINS que.."peo
him closely ~ 10 real ostase assessments, wan .no
view of finding out on what osn' HN' WV .'''s
rh. v,,n... declared that It had been the rule or
.so cr.,on, IN this city from time immemor'ai.
-. sv., nropersv at nom 30 TO 81 per cent less than
Tho fplI market value Mr.. reitner thus went gooo
aoa, further in his admission than did Mr. ooieman'
Who sad that on,v 20 per cent less than the null vaine
vas tl,o rebate Allowance Mr.. WINS thercupon
asked Mr. Fetner he ala not mink INC. th'' maac
all the Deputy Commissioners liable 70 ino'men' ION
perjury No, Mr.. Feitncr did NOT en,hA ~, o.e"u"
ADpcdlS
administered their duties In one way !eN 's".
=, became inst INTERPRETATION OF the Law. Hc could
not bowever eite n case In which that decision was
given. T., a.. All. \,
The words ordinary clrcumstsnces' In tho sale or
transfer OF real estate then became tho "a .o
adorable discussion. Mr. Feitner nem W VIC po''''on
that IL was not an evasion OF tho law 70 a''e"o ie
estate at from 30 10 IS per cent less thah ~na' "ou
be the full market value under "ordinasy c'rcum'
point Mr.. Fctner would consider that an ovasoh y,
tho av bepnn The witness said that while 80, 80
and even 40 Der cont below market value "oufo not
be an evasion OF the law, so per cent "oua oe " MS
opinion He did not believe that there nao oee0 ~n'
systematic under or GENERALIZATION OF city properly.
Mr. Twins called his attention to the case VI ZIG "oo
property on the east side OF broadway, between ihS
seventh and Thirty eighth sts., which poorer taan
the property on either side Of IT, Mr. Feiner saa no
knew no reason why there should be any difference IN
the basis Of the assessed valuation OF that properly anu
other property near IT, Mr.. WINS fcmsrho" ''a' MI
Coleman said that unimproved properly "e' ~ P0'
cent lower In the assessment.
Then the question OF personal property was taken
up. regard to the swearing on process ny WHICH
many people escape taxation for TINS sort "a prVp
erty, Mr. Fetner said that sometimes IN tho Fus"
season as many a. $50 people who want to b relieved
Of personal taxation, are examined in day In faot
there was such rush the end OF April that IL be-
came almost machine work Mr.. Feltner ulv agreed
with Mr. WINS and the committee as TO the useessness
OF attempting to tax personal property In Now YORK
to It's full extent. He said: don't think the system
we have now in operation Is good system; Is shouio
DO changed
would be possible to reach all personal property for
taxation BY any systemt'
81 do not was the reply. al think the elements
OF uncertainty are too great
Senator FSsset stated supposititous case In order
to get clearer light the whole question OF the re-
ations Of the tax paying public to the Commissioners
and Deputy Commissioners. He said "Suppose
Deputy Tax Commissioner should assess on his
certain piece Of property at 100000, twice tic
amount that the property had been assessed at any
previous time and the owner OF the property should
be informed that his assessment had been violently
doubled, could that owner make any arrangements
whereby that assessment could be reduced to the
original $3.50 900 without having that fact known to
the Tax Commissioners" Mr.. Feltner replied, "weu,
I suppose sos
have to be- done o1 with the deputy Il he was dishonest
o.-wouh it necessarily imply dishonesty Did
Al Az have heard Of it IN a general WY: heard
that one was disposed to look to the property,
owners for something In the way Oh pro'ecms sner
that tho owners conM deal With him n,
following up. There might he an exception once In
VIII" r SHt IN msht se Se oase here and there
Exceptional cases. said the witness. with the
emphasis on the adjective. Mr.. Feitner, when Mr..
Wins wanted To know why there should be three
Commissioners instead Of one, said that 1t was as
matter Of appeal; but when Mr. WINS asked him why
would not be proper just and as fair to permit
one man to determine an appeal as 1t Is to permit enc
man to make the assessments in the first instance he
said that he didn't think the judgment of one man
on appeal was as good the judgment OF three
STILL he thought thar with this right OF fair appeal
in existence, the judgment Of one man In making
assessments was good. To have only one Commits
soncr would be too vast power to give one man.
care not the taxpayers virtually IN the hands OF
one man now 7" asked Mr.. WINS
"Oh. no, they not said Mr.. Fetner.
.In the hands Of the Deputy Tax Commissioners1'
asked Mr.. WINS.
no. not when they have the right to appeal to the
Board Of Tax Commissioners"
Tax Commissioner Edward L. Paris succeeded Com
missioner Fetner in the witness chair. In regard to
the Huctuating rate Of percentage In assessing which
he said from 25 to 3d. whereas 1t had been be-
fore stated at 80 to IS per cent, below the actual
value he said The resson Is that the standard Is
not fixed"
Mr.. IvinsDon't you think, that you were going to
operate on percentage basis at AL 1t ought to be
A oThen there are two SO' faults You act on per-
eentags instead q an actual ysluet bee everybody
does tho same tnlngf h.-lhat IS the reason for IL,
whether 1t Is right not Is O question Of morals.
Senator Fassct-NOt Of law7 A.Not at ALL
Mr.. lvins-Then the second fault is that you have
variable standard Of percentaeel
Mr.. WINS wanted to know who at the foundation
Of the Department. the Commissioner or the Deputy.
The Deputy In the first instance Mr.. Paris said and
the Commissioner member Of an Appellate Board.
Tho witness said he would hardly think that there had
been In one year an increase in round figures Of
IS, 500 900 in the Seventeenth Ward Mr.. WINS said
Well 1t is either assessed now compared with tho
rest Of the city, before 1t under assessed compared
with the rest Of the city, But neither Of these things
could happen unless there tho first instance fail
ure to take ordinary market value; In the second In
stance, q fuctusting percentage