Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-06-11
THE ASSESSMENT QUESTION.


Another Letter Written by MIR. johnson en
the Board % Equalization.
Another letter has been added 60 the hles In
regard 10 the assessment question. THIS time
Mr.. johnson Of Ohio n Chairman 81 the com
mitttee on investigation into assessments in the
District replies 90 the last letter from tho
board o. equalization in regard 10 the inter-
probation of the Law by the assistant assessors
and also propounds some further questions
rHE rURrHER QUESTION:.
The letter. which the board will probably an
swer in due time. is as follows:
Yours Of the 9th 90 hand
await with interest the answers 20 quc.-
items one, TIVE. three. four and siN of INV COM
municatlon to the board OF equalization which
trust YOU will forward % me at your esrliest
convenience.
In answer 20 question Won say. The hoard
OF equalization most Respectfully rellies that Il
is not cogniSant 81 any such alleged erroneous
rule adopted by the board Of assistant asss.-
sors. &c. On behalf OF the cummlttes beg
30 call your attention to the report H. A.
1863. ON assessment Of taxes a. the
District of Columbia. n copy 81 which handed
you the other day. On page iSS YOU will find
the rule we refer 90: True intrinsic value II
that amount in lawful money winch such prop
erty would probably bring at forced sale under
adverse circumstances"
In proof that this rule was erroneous. on
page lS9 please note the language of = r.
Thomas. assistant district attorney. The word
value n used in the taN act ~ lsS3 means I
think. market value that IL. not what piece q
property would bring At a forc,i sale. but What
persons generally. " those desiring to purchase
were found. would be willing 10 pay FOR it,"
The communication Of MIR Thomas ss,tated
July q. The rule appears to nav, been adopted
July z, 81 that the board If assistant assessors
adopted u rule fixing values at what thew would
bring at forced vale. notwithstanding tho
fact that their legal advisor an cypress
language condemned that INTERPRETATION. We
therefore claim that ihe board - assistant as
SCISSORS did adopt the rule tha, vaa claim uo, %
be cognizant Of and that it was erroneous an
pears from the fact that they refused 20 FOLLOW
the expressed Interpretation Of their ieg,i
advisor.
1t seems that your decision was ha~ed on tho
fact that you were mot coguizant Of the exist
ence OF any such rule. Now that We have
called your attention C. the fact that there il
such an erroneous rule think Won are in en-
ror IA holding to that decision.
We would like you to submit the following
questions 20 Your legal adviser First. We're
the board OF assEtant assessors in error when
they interpreted she meaning Of the words
''yalue. I" true value aud valuation" m the
tax act of ISIS 10 mean what such property
would probably bring at forced sale under adj
verse circumstancosy'
Second. Docs not the language of the set II
1883 requiring all property To- be nssas-,d az its
true value in lawful money contemplAt. the
assessment at its market value under ordinary
circumstance
Third. Has committee Of Congress- n MEM
Der of Congress. citizen of the District or a
property ownerin the District. or anv Of them the
night 10 he heard and present testimony before
the board of equalization in support of a claim
that AL land has been assessed under a rule
which if the board of assistant assessors fol-
lowed has resulted in assessing property at
only part of its true VALUE in lawful moneyp
Fourth. Ii, after such claim and a presenta-
ton of proof. il shall appear 10 the satisfaction
of the beard that such rule was followed con-
uary tn law, is IL competent for the board %
equalization to correct the error by raising the
assessment to an amount that would equal this
true value in lawful money!
WHAT Mr.. JOHNSON SAID.
Mr.. Johnson in speaking TO a STAR reporter
said: at seems 10 that the board and the
citizens of the District generally should aid the
committee in Its work We want TO know clearly
whether IL is competent for Us or any one else
To appear before the board of equalization and
present testimony showing that certain assess-
ments should be raised. III not aud property
owners only can appear. and then ONLY in regard
to their own property the only drift Of the
board would be 10 reduce the assessment.
People. L think. made mistake ina
supposing that increase in the assessment would
mean increased taxation. Tins rate would hN
all that and the result Of taxation % the market
value would only mean equalization of a--ess-
ment. which Is certainly what every one should
desire. We also want 90 understand how the
board of equalization stands on the interpreta-
ton of the law made by the assistant as-essous."