The record-union., 1895-10-02
A FARMER OF GALA VERAS PROTESTS
Against the Assessment on the Utica
Mine.
The State Equalizers Again IN Session
They Review an "Examiner'
Editorial.

Equalization yesterday the following
letter touching the assessment of the
Utica mine in Calaveras County was
read:
"GENTLEMEN: The undersigned re-
spectfully calls your attention to the as
sessment of certain piece of property in
our county of Calaveras. The Utica mine
we believe to be assessed at less than one
twentieth its real value, according to a
casual newspaper account of the report
OF appraisers appointed by the court un-
der oath TO appraise the property OF the
Hobart estate, which owns one-third the
mine. Among other items OF stock, city
property, etc., was One-third the Utica
mine-Sl ,000, 900. This was about three
years ago. and it has been largely i'm
proved and developed since. The prop
erty had been assessed at a nominal fig
ure comparatively, but l kept the paper
and showed it to the Assessor and urged
the necessity and justice OF their paying a
fair proportion of taxes.
II also showed it to q member of the
Board OF Supervisors. So last year, so
the Assessor told me, their assessment
was raised 20 $4,000 for the whole mine,
which, as we believe, is still less than
one-twentieth its real value.
"They had a fire in the mine about two
months ago and were obliged to flood it
four or five levels, which took about four
days, when they went to work again,
having plenty ore in the upper levels.
Farmers property Is assessed at from
80 to 100 per cent. more than it is worth
or will bring, except in few instances,
and the county officials seem to work at
this wrong and intimate it is enough for
US TO know the amount of our own taxes
which the delinquent tax list will show
Is more than too many can pay. Ii moth
ing can be done this year we respectfully
suggest that you recommend the next
Legislature enact that mining carpora-
uonS or companies show their books that
just valuation OF their property may
be had.
NV farmers are ready and anxious to
show our books and accounts to the AS
SCISSOR and Supervisors. but no notice is
taken of them. There is no doubt that
other mines in this county, as we'll as all
over the State, are escaping taxation as
well as this one hereby brought TO your
attention, and we respectfully request
due consideration of the matter. All of
which is respectfully submitted.
b. +. THOMPSON,
Jenny Lind, Calaveras County,"
The Secretary was instructed To an
swer the letter, and also 10 send copies of
IL TO the Assessor and Board of Super
visors of Calaveras County.
y \ EN SPAPEE > CRlI1ClSA DENOU Need.
Equalizer Beamer read an editorial in
a San Francisco morning journal, in
which it stated, after referring to the
conflict between Attorney General Fitz-
gerald and the Board of Equalization:
The State Board of Equalization, I'M
der the vicious decision in the Wells
Fargo case, will not allow individuals to
be heard in relation to particular ASSESS
ments, and yet that body will employ
experts in various counties to delve aud
dig into the matter of individual ASSESS
ments, and then ask the State to pay for
their services. Obviously the State
should not he compelled to pay for such
an inQuisition when the Defendants as
they might be called, are denied hear
ing at their own expense, aud at times
and places to suit the convenience of the
board"
E'That is not true" said Mr.. Beamer
Every man who pays taxes has right
to hearing before this board, and he has
always been accorded that privilege"
THE paper didn't mean what it said"
replied Morehouse.
well, it said it, anyway" said Con-
troller Colgan.
SISKIYOU ASSESSMENTS.
Another discussion arose over COM
munication from the Assessor of Siski-
you County concerning the sworn state
ments OF property-OWnerS relative to the
value of their lands and the values fixed
by the Assessor. The following letter
was the subject OF the discussion:
"a question has arisen among some of
the attorneys of this county as to the au-
thority or power of the Assessor to place
higher value on property than that
given in by the owner, ii making up the
assessment roll, but must take the
owners estimate. and, if not satisfactory
to the Assessor, he must have the Board
OF Equalization raise it.
They also claim that Rule 5 of the
regulations and instructions OF the State
Board IS not law. Also, that il the AS
SCISSOR dares TO place a higher valuation
on piece OF property without having the
Board OF Equalization take action and
give property-Owners ten days notice.
that 1t invalidates the entire assessment
even though the Assessor does il for the
purpose OF bringing the value up equal to
land of the same quality and kind SINH
larly situated.
Il have claimed under the instructions
from the State Board that | have the
power to place values on any property
given in OH statements if they are too
low, as given in by the owners, and have
not hesliated to assess one and all kinds
Of property at what l thought was its full
cash value. Tho County Board thought
had that right. But after the roll is made
up, and turned over TO the Board OF
Equalization, 1t is their duty to raise or
lower according to instructions, as laid
down to them IN the code.
Am l right? And where does the State
Board get It's authority for Rule v? by
answering you Will greatly oblige yours,
respectfully, JOHN +. MCBRIDE,
Assessor of Siskiyou County"
Chairman Morehouse said the only per-
son who can fix the value of property for
assessment is the County Assessor
The clerk was instructed TO notify the
Assessor that he was right in assessing
property In the county higher than the
owner thought it should be assessed.
QUITE TOO FRESH