The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1893-05-31
OF INTEREST TO TAXPAYERS.
Opinion of the Court in the Matter Of
Wheeler e. DusenburY's APP
peal from the ASSESS
ment.

/ DutHts
Following is the opinion of the Court
relative to the assessment cases argued at
the recent term, as handed down by
Judge Noyes, which will doubtless he
read with interest by all Forest county
taxpayers:
In the matter of the Appeal of Wheeler
and Dusenbury from the Assessment
of Tract No. 52l9, in Hickory Town
ship. No. 80 May Term, 1892.
This is one of a number of appeals
from the decision of the County Commits
sioners, sitting as Board of Revision of
Taxes. In all of them the land in ques-
tion is wild, and chiefly valuable for its
timber. If the examples furnished by
the evidence fairly indicate the valuation
of such lands generally throughout the
county, and this we must presume is the
case, the public burdens have been most
unequally distributed. Equality of tax
alton requires that all taxable property
should be valued by the same standard.
Whether this is the whole, or but a frac-
ton of the real value, matters not, pro-
vided the same standard is adopted for
all.
Taxes upon lands are assessed, not only
by townships, but by counties-some-
times by the State at large. Assessments,
or, more properly, valuations for the pur
pose of assessment, are made by town
ships. 1t is necessary, therefore, that the
standard of valuation should be fixed by
law for the whole State. The assessors
are accordingly required to take an oath
to 'assess and value every separate lot,
piece or tract of land with the improve
ments thereon" ''at the rate, or
price, which you SHALL after due exami-
nation and consideration, believe the
same would sell for, il sold singly and
separately at a bona fide sale, after full
public notice." The County Commits
sioners, sitting as Board of Revision,
are required to equalize the valuations
returned by the assessors, and to bring
them to the legal standard. Notwith-
standing these plain provisions of the
law, it appears from the evidence pro-
duced on behalf of the County itself that
land, the real value of which is Sl23, 200, is
valued for taxation at $44, 900. Another
I tract valued by the witnesses at $147, 900,
is assessed at S23, 1888. The evidence, as
well in behalf Of the County as that
taken by the appellants, shows that tim
bered lands are assessed at from one
. third to one-sixth of their real value.
We are not advised of the average
assessment of farms and other improved
property, but the Associate Judges, both
of whom have some familiarity with the
subject, believe that it approaches much
more nearly the real value, and if this is
true, it is manifest that the owners of i'm
proved property are bearing much more
than their proper share of the burden OF
taxation. This is especially so in coun-
ty wherein the heaviest and most destruc-
tive use OF roads and bridges is in connec-
ton with the numbering business, and
where so large part of the taxable prop
erty consists of timber.
1t is proper to note, however, that the
J state of facts upon which we have been
commenting has only been brought to
light by the actual examinations of the
lands and estimates of the standing tim
ber made by experts for use on these APP
: peals. The facts now before the Court
were not before the County Commission
ers at the time of the hearings before
them, and it is not probable that the as
SCISSORS had any adequate knowledge o.
, the actual value of the tracts assessed by
them respectively. We cannot for
| hnNHnUnF Talnafnn Gf
of our disapproval upon the practice o.
under-valuation apparently prevailing in
this county. 1t cannot be but some as
SCISSORS will at least honestly attempt tc
comply with their oaths of office, and il
they do, the failure of others to do so re-
suits in inequality. But what is more
important, the wilful violation of a pub
lie duty, enjoined by a solemn oath, is SC
gross a misfeasance in Office as to call fol
the discipline of the Criminal Courts. II
should be corrected thoroughly, and al
once and in this work not the assessors
. and Commissioners alone, but all gooC
citizens should cooperate.
With the exception of one, or perhaps
two, tracts, the valuations appealed from
, they are far below the actual values as
shown by the testimony of the experts
who examined for the county. If Other
lands in the county were assessed at any.
thing like their real value these appeals
might be dismissed. The law requires
the court to have regard to the assessed
valuation OF other lands in the county
which we understand to mean that W,
= are to apply to the cases before us the
a same standard of valuation which We
> find to prevail in the valuation of othel
q lands in the county. We are not to fin
this standard from the highest, nor from
the lowest, valuation laid before us in tb,
! evidence, but by fair average of all th'
r evidence. We have fixed, as well as W,
are able, the value of each tract by tn,
standard established by law, and since W,
= have no authority to raise the other land
r to this standard, we have been obliged
\ in obedience to the law, 10 red1ce the val