The record-union., 1893-01-09
TWO SIDES OF THE ASSESSMENT
QUESTION.

Governor Markham advises that where
there are towns and cities in a county
the County Assessor and Tax-Collector
shall serve all, and local Assessors and
Collectors be done away with as an
economic change.
To avoid the fundamental proposition
that in every district in which tax levy
is to be used, the people have the right to
choose their own Assessors, it might be
necessary to amend the Constitution.
But passing that, and which is not pro-
nounced upon now, there is great merit
in the suggestion, and it ought to have the
most careful and deliberate examination.
For it is urged, first, that it will secure
uniformity of assessments; second, saw
ing to the people the salaries of local
Assessors and Taxi Collectors.
Against it, it is to be urged, first, that
rural and town residents are always more
or less at outs upon the assessment ques-
ton, with the result that the country
claims that city assessments are too low:
second, city and town residents claim
that inasmuch as their local taxes are
wholly for local purposes there can be no
just concern in the rural sections about
municipal assessments. To this it is to
be replied that even if the county assess
ment is higher than the municipal-and
as a rule it is-it cannot affect the tax
payer, since on higher assessment he
will pay less tax than upon a scaled
down assessment roll; that the local
Boards of Equalization can remain, and
thus the city protect itself against any
possible injustice of assessment.
1t is certainly defiant of the theory of
valuation for taxation that property in a
city should be assessed in the same year
at two distinct values, as is the case, for
instance, in Sacramento, where the
County Assessors valuations outrank
by large percentage those of the City
Assessor. But property-owners in cities
reply that even if that be true neither the
county nor the State is affected, as the
tax they pay those two governments is
upon the basis of the county assessment,
and, moreover, that as the residents of
cities pay taxes twice on the same prop
erty, where those in rural parts pay but
once, it is not reasonable that the local
assessment roll should move upon so
hiCh n rlana of valuation
To all this it is answered that the Con-
stitution and the laws contemplate Just.
not fictitious values, values neither above
nor below the just rating; that economy
is the chief end to be conserved by the
new proposition, and that it is an absurd
ity to have two assessing officials perform
duty that one can do as well: that to
certify the city property as assessed for
county and State purposes to the City
Auditor is but a clerical performance
which, when done, gives the city the
basis for its tax levy as completely and
well as if it employed its own Assessor I;
that to certify the rate to the County Tax
Collector is but another clerical perform
ance, and will enable him when collect
ing the county tax, at the same time and
without additional cost to the people, to
collect the tax for city purposes; that the
new scheme should be welcomed because
it lessons the visits of tax-gatherers. thus
removing one annoyance out of the finan-
eial year.
Ruralists win object to some extent on
the ground that cities will feel too deep
an interest in electing County Assessors,
and viii be disposed to put men into
office who will value rural property
highly and rate city property low, thus
giving to suburban dwellers the heavy
end of the taxation log to lift. To this the
friends of the scheme reply that whatever
political influence the city may have in
choosing the County Assessor it possesses
already, and that the incentive to exer-
else it is Just as strong now as it possibly
could be if the Assessor served both
country and town.
These are brief statements of phases of
the question as viewed from city and
Ssena rural standpoints and from the po-