Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1892-11-03


be sold to-day at much in excess OF one
half of it's present assessed valuation, if
at all.
In the year 1891 we appealed to your
honorable board for reduction OF 40 per
cent. of the assessed valuation Of real
property Of Chehalis county, which we
think now as we thought then, would
have Justly equalized the assessment OF
that county as against the assessment OF
other counties of this state for that year.
Had that entire reduction been made
the assessed valuation of our county
would then have Appropriated the assess
ment as returned by the assessor for
1892.
Since the assessment Of 1891 property
in our county has reduced in actual value
between 40 and 80 per cent and a just
assessment this year would not have been
more than 81 per cent of just assess
ment Of last year, when town lots as we'll
as unimproved lands are considered, Y y
We are however content to ask your
honorable board in consideration Of the
facts and the promises herein stated to
grant to our county reduction of 20 per
cent of the aggregate assessed value OF
its reality for the year 1892, as returned
by our County Board of Equalization.
Signed, GEO. H. EMERSON,
G. 7. WooDINa,
G. III. BYLEs,
F. d. ARNOLD,
| j. T. MEDcALF,
JAS. GILLIEs.
The enormously high assessment OF
Chehalis county in 1891 caused a delega-
ton Of our representative taxpayers to
appear before the State Board Of Equal
ization in that year and ask for reduc-
ton Of 40 per cent from the value made
by our county ASSESSOR a reduction Of
20 per cent was granted our assessment
for 1892 was considered SO extraordinarily
high that delegation Of our representa-
tive men from different sections of the
county, among whom was the chairman
Of our county commissioners, again APP
peared before the State Board of Ebual-
ization and asked a reduction of 20 per
cent from our county assessors values ;
among the arguments used to try to in
duce the state board to grant our just
and reasonable request was the assertion
of Mr.. Giles that in consequence OF our
over assessment in 1891, although reduced
20 per cent we were still compelled to
pay, and did pay in state taxes $25 900
more than OF right we should have paid !;
the State Board OF Equalization refused
to lower our assessment for 1892 for which
refusal we must pay again this year a
like sum more than is just; making our
county pay in state taxes for the years
1891 and 1892 the sum of $4,000 more
than is our share and all because OF an
over assessment.
Let us compare: We find that Cheha-
Lis comfy assessed at 80 per cent of last
years assessment and by State Board of
Equalization approved" Pacific county
assessed at 80 per cent Of last years as
| oCobu1OAt hllQ IdlbCu ~ RCI CCuV, WulCll
would only bring it up to 62% per cent Of
last years assessment; Lewis county as
sessed at go per cent of last years assess
ment and raised 10 per cent, which
would only bring it up to &C per cent Of
last years assessment. We are at least
IA per cent higher than Lewis county,
and TX per cent higher than Pacific
county, and we are approved" by the
State Board of Equalization. Taking the
cash difference IA per cent on 5000 1000
so that $1,l2O,0 900 expresses the valuation
for which Chehalis county is taxed more
than it's share, and the chances are that
if Chehalis county's assessment has been
placed at 66 per cent of last years assess
inent it would not have been disturbed,
but would have been approved" Lewis
|county's assessment should be as much
as Chehalis county, but the state land
commissioner who is member of the
State Board Of Equalization resides there,
and it is assessed &c per cent Of Chehalis
county.
Il 0ote for John H. MeG,a7o means a 5ote