The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-08-31
Capital.
Deseret National Bank

MIR. GllcnrlSt SAID ne realized that Clute
was getting it in the neck on all hands,
and he had no desire to make a groundless
claim, but it was manifestly unjust to tax
national banks on all their capital and not
follow the same policy with broker banks.
Mr. Clute interrupted and claimed that
the statement read by the attorney were
not sworn.
The latter replied that he was not there
to waste time in arguing with the asses
sor. His statement was before the board
MIR. Gilchrist also called attention to the
written protests of the Walkers and in
sisted that the valuations were excessive
anu should be reduced.
Caroline S. Hyde objected to be taxed
on 800 for improvements when she had
none.
G. M. Cannon, representing Angus NJ
Cannon, stated that the assessor had made
some critical errors in assessing his prop
erty which asked be corrected. Clute's
valuation on MIR. Cannon's porperty in block
s, plat A. $50, 400 was excessive, as he had
bargained the entire lot for $4,000
John II. Rumel, ir., owned lot in block
104, plat A, which Clute valued at $4,000,
while the county placed it at S., 100. He
claimed that the city valuation was at
least s., 900 too high.
William H. Perkes objected to Clute's
valuation of S1l,700 on his lot in block II,
plat +, which was on a side hill The
valuation in 1889 was $1,000. The county
valuation this year was IS, 500 which he
considered extremely high. He asked for
a reduction in Clute's assessment, as he
could only view it as excessive and un-
warrantable
Mrs. Henry Perks thought Clute's valu-
alton of her lot on Centre street S4,400 ex-
cessive to the tune Of about 81, 400
j. S. Tingey objected to Clute's valuation
on his lot on North Temple street of 81, 900
The county valuation on the same was
So, 500.
c. B. Felt, in behalf of the estate of N.
H. Felt, considered the valuation of Sl2uO0
on part of lots and in. block "a, plat A,
excessive. 1t was more than it could be
sold for, and was several hundred per cent.
above last years valuation.
4 Mrs. M. j. Shell protested against the
assessors valuation of her land at the
corner of North Temple and First West
| streets.
Mrs. Lucy Thurston objected to
Clute's valuation on her Main street prop
erty of $685. 1000.
Mrs. l.. 5. Stevens thought the assessors
valuation of $4,000 Oh her property or
Fourth South street. excessive.
Joseph Bull considered the assessment on
his lot in the Seventeenth ward excessive
His taxes last year were SIG, as against S44
this year.
oOoSpu l.. plObOotCu LIZ
4 assessors valuation of his property il
block Z, plat &c. of $500. He though,
Clute. was off about $1,000.
G. II. Hyde stated that Cute had valued
his improvements at $500, when they were
not worth 800.
John Meyer, of the Tenth ward, sale
that Clute's valuation of So, $50 on his little
home was excessive.
j Ellen E Allen, of the Twenty first ward
was assessed ON real estate valued BY
Clute at 81 300. Clute was too high
Real Estate Agent Lawson thought
, Clute's valuation of $4,000 on his lot in The
Eighth ward was outrageously high.
Il. T.. Patten stated that Clute's valuation
! on his property was $4,000 higher than the
county valuation.
S. A. Cooper's lot in the Seventh ware
was valued DIV Clute at So. 200. The county,
made it 81, geo, and he thought that higf
enough.
Thomas Bishop thought Clute was off hi.
base when he valued his lot in the Nine
teenth ward at s., $50
e. g. Holding protested against the as
SCISSORS valuation of S., 900 on his lot IN the
: Fifteenth ward.
S. d. Cady objected to the valuation o.
50, zoo on his lot as excessive.
} G. E. Howe's lot was valued at So $50
which was considerably more than it wa.
worth.
Jane M. Young represented that Clute,.
valuation of her property in the Seven
teenth ward was S25, 300, as against 81 ,60t
by the county. She considered the county