Los Angeles herald., 1891-08-31
Los Angeles Representatives
Before the State Board.
Balmaceda MOreh0use Indulges
in Sweeping Threats.
The Supervisors Succeed in Making
Out a Strong Case.
Los Angeles County Values as Viewed
by Northern Eyes-An Inter esting
Session With the Equalizers.
Taken Under Advisement.

ton, which we reproduce with some Of
its smartness eviscerated:
The Los Angeles county case was
called, and A. E. Davis, s. M. Perry, E.
A. Forester and H. G. Hubbard were
there to look after their county's inter-
ests, and so was Assessor Gray.
Davis acted as spokesman for the dele
CATION, and as soon as the equalizers
were ready for business he began his
argument. He declared in the first
place that no county in the state had
been assessed as high as Los Angeles,
considering the value Of land. In many
instances, as he could prove, the assess
the property he assessed could be sold
for. Property values had decreased
greatly since the memorable "boom,"
and he did not consider it just to expect
the county to continue assessing itself
to what it was really worth, and this
year it had been assessed up to its true
valuation. This, he thought, was more
than any other county could say. To
raise the assessment would be putting
IL dOONC LllC nCbual tdluC Va OllC PIOPCIty
assessed.
Mr.. Davis said he and the other SUI
pervisors were perfectly content to rest
their case on it's merits. They main
tanned that the assessment was fair
one and up to the full valuation. They
did not care to draw comparisons with
any other county's assessment.
"You might just as we'll" suggested
Mnrohnr1cn. stfho nfhnro
it-comparing their assessments with
yours"
"Well," said Mr.. Davis, 1--WE did not
sort of business, and are not going to
do it.'
Mr.. Davis then asked permission to
OF property as it was appraised by court
property sold for. He took up first the
estate Of Bixby, and desired to read the
appraisements in an action for partition,
and then compare them with the assess
ments.
Mr.Morehouse did not think appraise-
ments in the cases of partition were rep
cessarily indicate what price the property
was to be sold for.
Mr.. Davis said the appraisers in the
Bixby matter were competent men, and
it was to be presumed that their figures
represented the true value of the land,
as near as they could get to it.
After some further discussion on the
point, Mr.. Davis was finally allowed to
read his comparative figures. They
were quite lengthy, but few OF them
will be sufficient to cover his point. Ac-
cording to his data, the Bixby estate
was appraised for less than it was as
sessed. For instance, one parcel that
was appraised at $2S per acre was as
sessed at $50; another piece appraised
at $13. so and assessed at $25; appraised
at $15, assessed at 500; appraised at
$19.50, assessed at $25; appraised at $21,
assessed at $25, etc.
Then Mr.. Davis related how the estate
was sold off in ten-acre tracts, and the
assessments, he declared, were by far
higher than the actual selling price.
Fer example, he cited the following
cases: Ore tract sold for $42 per acre,
assessed for $50; another sold for $3.50,
assessed $3.50; sold for $64O, assessed
$3.50; sold for $l64, assessed $3.50; sold
for $3.50, assessed. $500; sold for $12O.
assessed $500, etc.
Mr.. Davis explained that his object
was to show that when property was put
up for sale in Los Angeles nowadays, it
would not, as a rule, bring under the
hammer what it was assessed for.
Are these figures fair guide. to the
entire assessment of Los Angeles coun-
tyr" asked Mr.. Morehouse. !,
"Well, hardly" replied Mr.. Davis.
ttTt showr h0uo.or fhof o,,r ossoue,,,x,,t
is plenty high enough. It shows that
our assessor has placed full and fair
valuation on our property"
II should think, according to your
figures, that it showed an unfair valua-
ton" said Mr.. Morehouse.
"Well. this is only one piece of prop
erty-we can't tell what other property
would sell for" was the supervisors re-
ply.
Mr.. Morehouse did not appear to be
satisfied with these comparisons. eff
the reading of those fgures." he said,
sis for the purpose OF showing that Los
Angeles is assessed too high, it is good
evidence. We are here as board of
equalization, and if any county will
come before US and ask for reduction,
it will be listened to as attentivelv as il
it were cited to show cause whv its
assessment should not be raised. And.
by the way, Mr.. Davis, did the SUPER
visors of Los Angeles, while sitting as a
county board Of equalization, make any
reductions of those assessments Won
have Just read ?"
ssOh, yes," replied Mr.. Davis, 1--WE re-
duced many of them one-third."
'Then," said Mr.. Morehouse, coolly,
''those figures you have read do not rep
resent your assessment as it stands, but
what it was formerly--befor it was re-
duced. This is not fair way of dealing
with us."
1T only shows that our assessor put
it on rather high, !" said Supervisor Hub
bard, coming to Mr.. Davis rescue.
Eyes, but it does not show how the as
sessment stands now," replied Mr.. More
house, tersely. "You have misrepre
sented your case: You have not acted
fairly and are doing yourselves injury"
The Los Angeles people explained at
length that they did not intend to mis-
represent the case. They only wanted
to show that the assessor had been led
astray and had made up his list on in
flated and boom prices.
Mr.. Morehouse wanted to know if
they had brought with them q cor
rected list of the assessment, as it stood
after the county board of equalization
was through with it.
They had not, but promised faithfully