The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-12-17
HE GRAND JURY TOOK A HAND.
1T RECOMMENDS 4 REDUCTION IN A
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT.

The savannah Cottage and Improve
Taxed-Tax Receiver Dillon Says
He valued the Property the Same
as the Company Valued 1t in Col
Iecting Taxes From Those Who
Hold Its Bonds for TitIe-The Cues
ton an Interesting One and the
to Tackle.
The Savannah Cottage and Improve
ment Company. through its attorney, Mr..
S. L. Lazaron, took before the grand
jury of the superior court yesterday the
matter of the taxation of its improved
and unimproved property west Of the
city. the claim being made that the tax
receiver had assessed it at too high
valuation.
The petition, as presented to the grand
grand jury, stated that il had been as
seSsed al $1,000 per acre. or Slo0 per lot,
and that the houses had been assessed
at $1,000 each. which IL was claimed was
unjust and extortionate, and the grand
jury was asked to take action in the mat
ter. The grand jury, after considering
the matter at some length, called for
Capt. John r. Dillon, the tax receiver,
without previous notice as TO what he was
wanted for. The grand jury, after hear
ing the matter, had an order drawn, in
which it was stated that the tax receiver
had made an error, and recommended
that the county commissioners reduce
the assessment to 500 per acre and 10
goo for each house.
The matter was brought up sometime
ago, at meeting of the county commits
sioners, at which time the county attor-
ney, Nh. Saussy, stated that the commits
siohers had no authority TO reduce prep
erty valuation after it had been made
by the tax receiver, but that it would
have to go before the controller general
Tor a decision.
Capt Dillon was seen by a representa-
tive OF the Morning News, after the grand
jury adjourned, and made a statement
similar TO that he made before that body,
and before the commissioners also at a
meeting held Nov. Is.
In matters Of valuation of property"
ne said, lit is the duty of the tax receiver,
under the law, TO reject any returns which
ne does not deem just and proper, and
IL he and the tax payer cannot agree upon
some equitable value then the tax payer
mas a right to ask for a board of disinter-
ested tax payers to fix a value. This the
company refused to do, and i would not
accept the valuation placed on the prop
erty Dy the company because l knew that
II was compelling its grantees to pay TO
the treasurer of the company, state and
county taxes, for three years past on
valuation greatly in excess of the amount
shown on the digest. Two of the grantees
made appeals to the tax receiver for ad-
vice in this matter and thus it was brought
TO my attention. When tax payer fails
or refuses to make proper returns and
will not accept the alteration, under the
law, of an arbitration, it be-
comes the duty of the tax
receiver to fix a value in accordance
with the best information he can obtain
And as this company had assessed its
grantees at a valuation of 81 900 for i'm
proved lots and was charging them state
and county taxes on that amount / deem
ed that proper value for the property
especially as l could see no reason why
corporation should assume the preroga-
tives of the state and county in laying IN
property owners the burdens of taxa ton
in excess of the already onerous amount
required by law.
This recommendation will come before
the county commissioners when all the
facts as above stated will be shown, and
the corporation will be required to show.
in addition, what amount of state and
county taxes has been received from the
holders of its bonds for titles to these lots
and what net revenue this company has
been enjoying from this source in excess
of the gross amount paid into the public
treasury"
The matter may be brought up at a
special meeting of the commissioners, in
asmuch as considerable Importance has
been attached to ii, and it involves ques-
tions which will undoubtedly be of gem
eral interest The company claims ii has
not taxed its grantees on the property as
stated, though ii is stated that such taxes
were charged in one or two instances some
time ago, by mistake of the company's
agent who was instructed to rectify his
ere This however, is the question that
the case hinges on.