The record-union., 1891-09-09
InnrnnCn
HOW THEY VOTED,

The votes on increasing the assess
mentS were as follows:
San Francisco, thirty per cent. Ayes
BeaTner, Colgan, Hebron and More
house; no. Swan.
Los Angeles, fifteen per cent. AYES,
Beamer, COlgan, Swan and Morehouse;
no, Hebron.
Santa Clara, unanimous vote for ten per
cent.
San Joaquin, unanimous vote for five
per cent.
San Bernardino, unanimous vote for
fifteen per cent.
Santa Barbara, unanimous vote for ten
pes cent.
Orange, ten per cent. Ayes-Beamer.
Swan and Morehouse; no, Hebron.
Kern, unanimous vote for five per cent.
increase.
San Mateo, unanimous vote for ten Der
cent. increase.
Without any increase by the board the
State rate would have been Is cents 8
mills on each 500 valuation. or 81 IS on
each $1,000. With the increases made by
the board the State rate will be A cents 6
mills on each Sl00, or st 46 on each 81 200.
THE RATE ESTABLISHED.
The increases above mentioned have
established the rate which will be levied
by the board. The equalization brought
about by these increases will affect the
taxpayers of the State as follows: In the
counties whose assessment rolls have not
been changed there is a decrease in favor
of the taxpayers of ~ cents on the one
thousand dollars valuation. In the coun-
ties that have been raised ) per cent a de-
crease Of 20 cents on the one thousand
dollars valuation. In the counties raised
10 per cent. an increase of two cents on
the $1,000 valuation. In the counties
raised ID per cent. an increase of a cents
on The 81 900 valuation, and in the case OF
San francisco, whore there is q raise of 80
per cent, an increase to the taxpayers is
effected Of 81 cents on the 81 ,0O0 valuation.
Messrs. Swan, Colgan and Hebron are
reported to have been opposed strongly
TO several of the propositions to raise, but
as they did not all pull together on any
particular one their efforts were without
result. Morehouse and Beamer were for
raising.
SWAN OPPOSED IT.
Mr.. Swan made a hard fight to prevent
the raise of San krancisco's assessment.
After he had been voted down he moved
TO reconsider the whole matter In sup
port of his motion he made an extended
speech, in which he set forth that the
raise in San Francisco was based on in
justice, and went so far as to accuse GER
tain members of prejudice. He said that
the amount OF the raise was an outrage,
and consideration of all the facts should
appeal to the fairness OF every member of
the board against such action.
Mr.. Colgan seconded Mr.. Swans mo-
ton, and voted with him for reconsidera-
tion, but the other three votes beat them.
Ventura County, it appears convinced
the board that its assessment was too
high. The board reduced it S479, $40.
HOW WE ARE GETTING ALONG.
The summary in the report which the
State Board viii submit shows the in
creases and decreases in valuations
In the various counties as COM
pared with last year. For instance.
IN Alameda County the total value
of property as returned by the Auditor
shows an increase of s., ,557 $50; Alpine.
@u increase of So ,252; Amador. increase.
500, ,S9I; Butte, decrease, 81 ,492, $50; Gala
veras, decrease, S1GI, ,75O; Colusa. SI0.S23. :
3l3; Contra Costa, increase, S560, ,36l; Del
Norte, increase, SIS, ,096; IEl Dorado. in
crease, so, ,4I3; Fresno, increase. 8, $50. -
39l; Humboldt, increase. 81, ,OG4, ,S45: Inyo.
increase, SlO,437; Kern, increase includ-
ing changes made by the State Board of
Equalization), S223, $50; Lake. increase.
sl7, ,464; Lassen, increase, S84, ,885: Los An,
geles, increase Including changes of
state Board Of Equalization, Sl3.-
2Ol,Sl3; Marin, increase, $lSq. .767;
Mariposa, decrease, SIS, ,672; Mendocino.
increase, SS65, ,01S; Merced, increase, S6S5. =
900; Modoc, increase, S75.T72: Mono, in
StSdSSE SC'oif. AlblltIeN, increase, 81 NO.
439; Napa, decrease, Sl5S, ,204; Nevada,
increase, $50, $40; Orange, increase i'm
Guiding changes, SS75, ,06l; Placer, de-
crease, Sl53. no. Plumas, decrease, S7l. .ll9;
Sacramento, increase, S63S. .O76: San
Benito increase, 81, 2,l3O,73I San Bernar-
dino, increase INCLUDING changes1. 81
426, ,76l; San Diego, decrease, 81, ,242, sos:
San Francisco, increase, Including
changes), SOS, ,30S. 900; San Joaquin, in
crease Including changes), SS08, ,Sl5; San
Iuls Obispo, increase, 1856, 2l2; San
Mateo, increase Including changes),
Sl,5s4, ,S95; Santa Barbara, increase in-
cluding changesl, 81, ,595.224; Santa Clara,
increase Including changes, 81, ,92i, ,676;
Santa Cruz, increase, S440,2l2; Shasta, de-
crease, SlS7, ,52I; Sierra, decrease, $40, III.
Siskiyou, increase, 81, ,244. 49,; Solano,
increase, S2G6,096; Sonoma, decrease
S}03,S75; Stanislaus, increase, S27S, ,43l
Sutter, decrease, S23S, go; Tehama. de-
crease, 1908, ,25S: Trinity, increase, S2S2. :
500; Tulare, increase Including changes),
$l,3l7 ,89; Tuolumne, increase, Sl53. $50:
Ventura, decrease Including changes
Si79,54G; Eolo, increase, S305, 5,250, and
Yuba, increase, S3l, COS.
THE STATE LEVY
The board has fixed the State tax levy
as follows:
General fund .............. ..... o3 4
sNS4loOI lbif'' o
Interest and Sinking fund nd............ / O
af AflFar r#4NgE =,