The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1894-12-29


HALL G. BURLEIGH,
OTIS HAYFORD.
GEORGE PuTTLE.
Board OF State Assessors.
To this City Solicitor Chapman. IN behalf
of the Portland assessors replied as follows;
Portland. Me-, May II, 1894.
Board of State Assessors: . ,o,,
Gentlemen-our favors Of April 10, 1874.
and of April Is, 1894, 10 the assessors OF
Portland, were referred to me by them, and
lwriie 10 YOU after a very careful Considera-
ton of the points raised by you: nave
carefully examined the Revised Statutes.
Of these sections is ''ihe:propert y.owned and
held by municipalities are necessary LOT tle
carrying on lis government. made sup1ect
TO taxation, and in Section 8, the properly
of the United States and of this state, IS
exempted
The law on this subject, as understand
Corporal ions. Section el4,, lin 4th edition,
section 775), and cited by the supreme
Court of Maine in a decision by. Foster -
534. THE gen eral statutes of the state up
on the subject of taxing property undoubt ed
ly refer TO private property and not 70 tlht
lie nature of municipalities and the pur-
poses for which they are established. mere
tofore explained, the author is OF OPINION
extend to any property owned by them. GER
tainly to mono owned by. them Tor pubic
cases. In accordance with these views me
"A
of Louisville vs.. Commonwealth. Duvsli
294. held that whatever property was USED
and held by the city for carrying on us
municipal government or was necessary OF
useful Tor that purposes was not taxable by
the state, and this would include public
buildings. prisons and property dedicated
to charity"
Further, on page 536, the Court says,
Courthouse S. jails, town houses. school
houses, poorhouses and other buildings APP
propriated to public. uses owned by mnnlci
pal corporations and incident to such cor
porations, are but the means and 1nstru-
nentaliries used for municipal and govern
mental purposes and are, therefore. exempt
from general taxation. not by express
statutory prohibition. but, as we have seen,
by necessary implication. Hence, 1t mas
been held upon principles quite analogous
that Eublic property is, by Implication. ex-
empted from lien statutes as much as from
general tax laws, and forsthe same reason
answer 10 the question whether the public
property owned by the city of Portland Is
taxable properly. nndeI revised SIatutes
decision in the above cited case. that Mr..
A. p Gould for he plaintiff. made the same
point in his argument that you make IN
your letter, as to what property is taxable,
and that he was expressly overruled by tie
court.
State Assessors. do not. understand that
and no one is more anxious. than the City, of
Portland to comply with all proper rules
permission. however. will say just a word
about Chapter 103 of the laws OF 1921,
section 8. Under section eight, you TX the
valuation of real and personal estate on
which state and county taxes shall be levied
in each town and apportion the tax. But
this valuation should be liked; and the tax
apportioned upon property which is by law
taxable, and think have shown that the
public property of the City of Portland is
not by law taxable.
cip1e of the thing. The citizens Of Portland
are already under great burden of ex-
pense in maintainiIng our public l dsIi,.us
direct benefit. To add to this necessary
burden. whi3h is even greater than we can
we'll bear, the unnecessary burden OF tax
alton does not appear to be in accordance
with sound policy.
| trust that the above will be salts
factory answer to the requirements in your
letters above named to the assessors of
Portland. In case any difference should
still remain, the City Of Portland. respect .
fully requests hearing before your honor
able board.
The city assessors say that the state
assessors have not replisd TO this letter.
Chairman Farnsworth said on Thursday
that the exact figures of Portland's doom
were follows:
State assessors, s4oss7. s1a
Our valuation rend, 36,547 ,260
Excess, 81 $50 1853
This is II per cent. Mr.. Farnsworth says
further: "We claim that our valuation is
as high as 1t possibly should be. This excess
is evidently doom, as we do not see by the
state assessors report what 1t is made mp
of. Last year they insisted that We should
make return of all our public buildings.
etc., which we refused to do, and referred |
the matter to the city solicitor. The letter !
of Mr. Burleigh would seem to indicate that |
they wanted such return for statistical |
purposes. but ii so. why should they tax us |
on S3l5.c0O of land that these buildings |
were on. The facts are they had no right |
OF law to govern them in this matter, and |
30 have abandoned that mode and doomed |
us. 1t will be noticed in their report of |
1898, under town property, that amount of |
$3l5, 053is for land on which our school build |
fngs. engine houses. etc., are situated. But |
in the report of this year, 1894, no figures |
are given. The answer to this is. that, find |