Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-08-28
STILL THEY CONE.
Moro and More Complaints Agaiust
Clute's Figures.

| n tNVAHA VI Nut lily Council
was present last night, sitting as a
board Of equaliz Ition, aud the fol.
lowing complaints were presented.
President Weber, Director Geo.
NJ. Cannon and Elias <. Smith
and Secretary BA:eman, Of lions
Benefit Building Society, appeared
to protest agains. the capital stock
Of the society, sIT5, 900 being asses
sed. Mr.. Weber stated that It was
a poor mans society am formed
solely for the purpose Of enabling it,
members TO build homes and there
for to increase the tar able property
Of tile city. The directors served
without pay and the object Of the
society was not to make money. II
it was a foreign corporation Il would
not be required to pay taxes under
the law. 1.-THE tax assessed by the
assessor should be allowed 10 stand,
the society would have to 90 out Of
the business. The profits Of the
society were -, 1000, and he did not
object to that being paid.
Judge Smith slid the county
board Of equalization had RENTED
the assessment on the capital stock
Of SlT5,O)0, and he thought the city
should do the same.
Mr.. Cannon said the membeus Of
the association got together and
allowed one Of their number 10 use
the money Of all Of them to build "A
house. The members Of the associa-
ton received this benefit in turn.
The man who built the house was
assessed upon Il and the assessor as
sessed upon the money Of the society
with which it was built. By this
method, he said, the capital Of the |
society was taxed twice.
Assessor Clute attempted 10 an
swer the arguments Of the gentle.
man, but his effort was very weak /
aud had the effect Of strengthening |
the claim Of the society.
Judge ; NTH, repres .nting the /
Deseret National Bank. asked that /
the valuation Of $3.50 per share on 1
the $3.50 shares Of that corporation /
ne reiucsl b 500 per share. The
bank was also assessed on Sj53.6ll ]
capital stock and on real estate SIS
DO. Judge Smith objected 10 the
real estate being ASSESSED, a. IL was
included in the capital stock. /
John Lawrence owned a lot on
Fifth West Street which was valued
10y Clute at $500. He considered
this excessive.
Peter Shergrin owned a lot on
South Temple Street. which was |
valued at 300. This was more
than the property would sell for.
ThOmls Sleight Ownel n lot on
Pear Street, which was 50 situated
that Il could not be reached 10y a
wagon. Mr.. Clute valued this al
s.. 500, while the county valuation
vas $500. He thought Clute was
away of his hlse,
Mrs. Jane Is. Taylor represented
that she was assessed on two rods
which had teen decided for a street.
y. +. Hyde objected to Clute's
valuation on his property on North
Ienple Street OF SEIZED. The |
c1uCty assessors valuation on the
same property was = 80. and when
Mr.. Hyde Offered il for sale last
spring for $4,000, il laid the real
estate m'n out coli. Mr.. Hyde
thought Sl5.0lJ would be about
right.
4. =. Barnes owned a piece Of
property n Joining Davis, Howe n
Cp.'s foInliry, which was valued NJ !
5000. The county ASSESSOR valued
il at Sgi1l, and Mr.. Elrus- would
like 10 fint q buyer at Cluie's
figures.
Charlotte NJ. Hill owned a lot
near the corner of l. aud Fir.t
streets, which Mr.. Clutc valued al !
$500. Tie owner wanted 10 find 4 !
purchaser At that price,
John SIuir,s owned a Dot IN block
p, plat II, which was vi!ucd at :
SjjSl. Inst year Tie t-lJatiOu was
$500. Mr.. Squirgs didn't think
CIuie was justified in jumping the
value up 10 that extent.
Mns. Sarah +. Duncan objected 10 !
the valuation Of $500 on her lot on :
East Street. The tax this
year vas S27.Sl, as against SI.SlI
last year. She nal not bseu able 10
s-t an offer Of over 5000 for the
place.
Wm. J. silver objected 10 the ex- :
cesSive valuation Of his property on !!
North Temple Street. Last year IL )
vas valu- II at Slp1l, while this year
lt was SSilJ, while the county valued
Il az S83ll. Mr.. Silver stated that
he was not anxious 10 sell out, but
II the assessor would t1kc the prop
-rty a, his own valuation he would
let him have a.
Henry R.is-r thought Clute's !
Of S24, 100 on his property
in block g, plat y, was altOge her
too high. The county valuation
was under $1,000.
Mrs. Mary l.. Smiley thought
Ciute's vilu atoms at 81 500 on her
lot 2ixiu, In block %, plat 4, was
excessive.
Mrs. r. Tremlyne stated that the
lax upon her property on South
Temple Street was double what il
vas last year. She was a widow.
and besides this heavy tax, had 10
pay special taxes for water mains
which wSrs Of no earthly benefit to
her, $50 for street sprinkling and
'pecial .hOol taxes. She asked for I,
some reduction.
Richards Brothers Main Street {
property was valued at sT4,lU0 by
Clute, while the county assessor
made il S53,0lO. The owners
thought Clute was too high on some
d the property.
b. q. RaybOuld's property was
valued 10y the city at s94,Oll, while
the county valuation was S53.0ll.
Mr.. Rayb1uld thought the county
assessment was high enough.
Joe Baumgarten owned a piece Of
property in the Twelfth Wari aud
in the Seventeenth ward,
which were valued at S2l 100. while
the county valuation was SIS, 100.
He thought the county as ~ Br's
was too high. but Clute's /
figures were unreasonable.
The following persons asked 10
have their taxes RENTED because
NJ their inability IN pay: Thomas (
Horne, Eleventh Want, sli.76; Mr..
+. Decker. Sixteenth Ward; Eliza
J. Jones, Twelfth Ward. $50; Mrs.
l.. Robinson, Eighth Ward, S97.2l;
Mrs. Matilda COUNSEL, Sixteenth
Ward, - -.
Probate CouFt.