The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1892-04-23
HOP AND GROWERS,
They Object to Having Their Crops
Specially Assessed,
AND Give Their Reasons Therefor-The
state Board of Equalization
TO be Petitioned.

W oIuer py Chairman Daniel Flint who
stated that the object of the meeting was
TO consider the recent order of the State
Board of Equalization increasing the
assessment on hop-lands 10 per cent. and
other matters pertaining to the interests
Of hop-growers.
Mr.. Flint said he was disappointed at
the small number present, which was
owing, he said, to the negligence of the
secretary IN not regularly calling the
meeting. The Secretary, o. a. Lovdal,
was not present, and George Witten-
brock was chosen to act in that capacity
temporarily.
county Assessor r. D. Irvine being
present, he was requested to state to the
meeting the facts concerning the increase
IN the assessments on hop and alfalfa
crops.
Mr.. Irvine read those sections of the
law relating to growing crops" and said
the State Board of Equalization had di-
iected him to except alfalfa and hop vines
from those exempt from taxation.
PRESIDENT Morehouse of the State Board
held that lands on which hops and alfalfa
are growing are far more valuable than
similar lands adjoining Oh which these
crops are not growing. For his own
part, Mr.. Irvine said, he did not think it
just TO assess hop vines, because to his
own knowledge vines had often to be re-
neWed, and could not be considered in
the category of permanent improve
mentS. he was simply carrying out the
orders of the State Board.
a number of gentlemen asked ques-
tons OF Mr.. Irvine, touching the latters
views as to his duty in the matter OF max
ing assessments. In the course of his re-
marks Mr.. Irvine stated that last year he
did not specially assess hops and alfalfa
lands.
DIR. burst of Wheatland, Yuba County,
remarked that he had been specially as
sessed on his hop lands. The value of
his hop roots, however, deteriorated in
value from year to year, and had to be
renewed. Then, again, for the first year
or two, alfalfa does not yield much reve-
nue. and is an expensive crop to plant and
bring TO maturity. In the opinion of DIR.
burst the 10 per cent. increase placed on
hop and alfalfa lands should be made
upon ali the property of the county, the
revenues of which are increased by the
valuable crops raised.
l.. +. Long of Mendocino claimed that
on the lSt OF March, when the tax assess
ments are made, no man can tell whether
his hop roots are worth dime or not.
They are beneath the soil and no one can
tell whether they will grow the ensuing
season and raise crop or whether the
roots had been killed. The only way to
determine the matter would be to open
the hills and examine all the roots
Again, very often it costs the grower
more money to raise hops than he can
get for them. The farmers burden is
heavy enough, at best, but it is mani
testify wrong to impose such tax as
that proposed on hops and alfalfa. In
some counties the assessors did not, he
understood, intend to assess hop lands,
as they did not regard the action of the
State Board of Equalization as impera-
tive in the matter. Still, ii hops were to
Ice assessed in Sacramento County they
should be in all counties. He hoped the
proposed action would be reconsidered.
John Rooney of Brighton said it was
shame to tax alfalfa crops, as after the
fourth year the roots did not yield well
and soon had to be renewed. Last year
the grasshoppers ate every spear of al
falia along the Costumes, and poor peo-
pie who depended on their little fields for
living would not have been able to
stand an assessment on their crops
Patrick Carroll of Suffer County, Z. ].
Croly of Sacramento and others spoke in
similar strain. Mr.. Croly held that I'M
der the law, which exempted growing
crops, the State Board of EQUALIZATION
had no authority to direct the levy of a
special assessment on hops and alfalfa
lie was informed by Assessor Irvine that
the State Board regarded rooted hops as
permanent property. This is absurd as
he could not tell on the lst of
March that he had any property of value
beneath the soil.
Mr.. Wittenbrock said that out of Is. 900
hop roots planted not long ago he had
been obliged to replant $1,000, the roots
having rotted out. This shows there is
nothing in the claim that hop roots are
permanent property.
MIR. Irvine again explained the position
he took before the State Board of EouaIi-
Zation, and the arguments with which his
objections to the order were met by the
board.
MIR. Rooney held that the Assessor had
the law TO govern him, and should pay
no heed to the special orders of the Board
of Equalization.
Mr.. Irvine replied that the State Board
interpreted the law, and he, as Assessor,
was governed by their interpretations
thereof.
Mr.. Rooney said that if the members of
the State Board of Equalization held that
alfalfa and hops were not growing crops
they certainly are not farmers.
WELL" remarked Chairman Flint.
''you wouldn't expect to find any farmers
on the State Board of Equalization"
Mr.. Long of Mendocino said the whole
question was as to whether or not the
State Board of Equalization had correctly
interpreted the law. In his opinion. and
that of the meeting, the board had made
a mistake. He therefore moved that a
committee of five be appointed to wait
upon the State Board of Equalization.
present the matter to them, and give rea-
sons why no special assessments should
be levied on hops and alfalfa. Perhaps
the board might reconsider its action, but
If it did not he, for one, was in favor OF
resisting the order and making test case
III the courts.
The motion was carried and the COM
mittee named was Messrs. Long of Men
docino, burst of Yuba, Carroll of Suffer,
and Croly and Flint of Sacramento, with
County Assessor Irvine added.
Flood Flint suggested that If hops and
alfalfa roots are to be taxed, those of as
paragus should be, also.
The committee was Instructed to call
upon the State Board of Equalization at
the next monthly meeting of that body.
Some time was devoted to discussion
of the 'tare" question, but there was a
wide diversity OF opinion on the subject.
1.-The legal tare is now two per cent, or
about four pounds per bale.
FINALLY j. +. Camp moved that the for
mer rate OF tare fixed by the association
be reduced to that named in the State law
namely, two per cent.
Some OF those present thought the
growers and dealers could regulate the
rate between themselves.
The motion prevailed.
The association then discussed the mat
ter of securing Indians for service in the
hop fields during the picking season, in
preference to Cinnamon.
mr.