The record-union., 1896-11-25

or SAN Bernard1nO called attenClon u
the fact that persons often owned prop
erty in more than one county, and were
squeamish about making affidavit In
one county as to their possessions In
another. He had often found it neces-
sary to add to the form the words so
far as the assessment relates to the
property owned by me In the county in
which the assessment is made"
Morehouse stated that the affidavit
applied only to the property in the
county in which the assessment was
made.
King said that was probably so. but
the aff1ant did not take It that way. AT
the proper time he would offer an
amendment making the desired change
Beamer Of the Board of Equalization,
who is the author of the questions con-
tanned in the affidavit, explained how
he came to insert them. In his county
(Yolo) there were many men who
dressed better and had more money
than himself, yet We're not on the as
sessment roll. He had lain awake
nights evolving the problem of how he
was to reach that class, and the re-
suit was the string of questions en-
had, the first year after their adoption,
brought out STAT 900 worth Of prop
erty in his county which had never be-
fore been assessed.
AS the author of these questions.
Beamer received the personal thanks
of number of the Assessors, among
them Berkey of Sacramento, who
stated that they had been the means Of
placing $780, 900 worth of property upon
Sacramento Countys assessment roll.
Section 36333, relating to arbitrary as
sessments, came in for considerable
comment, but no definite action was
taken.
AT 4:45 p. m. the committee took
recess until 7:30 p. m.
EVENING SESSION.
The Committee Of the Whole reas-
sembled at 7:80 p. m. i'm the Supreme
Court room. and the reading Of the
law went merrily on.
When Section 3640 which compels
Assessors to keep a field enrolment
book was reached, there were cries of
strike 1t out" but there being q num-
Der Of resolutions bearing on the sec
ton, before the proper committees,
1t was passed
Section 3644, relating to the place
where registered vessels shall be as
sessed, was referred to the Committee
on Revision
Section 364S, which provides that
property which has been wilfully con-
cealed, removed, transferred, or mis-
represented by the owner or agent
thereof to evade taxation, upon discov-
n11lCt ho oCccccad O
ten times its value, and the assessment
so made must not be reduced by the
Board Of Supervisors" came up for it's
share of discussion. 1t was contended
that under Section 1851 the Supreme
Court had held the section to be un-
constitutional. Mr. Berkey Of Sacra-
mento contended, however. that If the
matter was properly presented to the
courts 1t would be declared legal in
all it's points. He had case now
pending IN which the Board Of Super
visors had set aside his arbitrary as
sessment and believed he would win
1t. The section was referred to the
proper committee.
Section 1906, fixing a penalty for the
failure of an Assessor to complete his
assessment book or transmit the same
was read. Mr. Berkey solernly rose
and moved that the section be stricken
from the statute book of the State.
The motion was carried amid great ap-
plause and laughter
Scott of Kern County sprung the
question as to whether or not the State
Board of Equalization assessed the
fences along railroad tracks and called
upon Mr.. Morehouse to explain.
Mr.. Morehouse stated that the Board
Of Equalization assessed the franchise.
the roadbed, the rails, right Of way and
rolling stock. IT, he said, the fence was
included in the right Of way or the
roadbed, then the board assessed 1t and
the Assessors themselves must deter
mine whether or not it had been as
sessed. The same rule applied to snow
sheds.
A number Of Assessors stated that
they had assessed the fences to the
railroad companies, but there was a
question with them whether or not they
had an actual right to do So
Adams of Placer wanted to know of
Mr.. Morehouse why he evaded the
question and refused to state whether
or not the Board of Equalization had
assessed the fences and snowsheds.
Mr.. Morehouse said he himself did
not know whether fences and sheds
We're assessed by the board or not. If
they were included in the five things
mentioned, they were assessed-other-
wise they were not.
Scott wanted to know where Asses
sors were to go for the information If
not to the State Board of Equalization.
Mr.. Morehouse thought they had
about got to the end of their tether
unless they relied on their own iudg-
ments.
Controller Colgan suggested that the
Assessors make inquiry of the board by
letter and thus put the members on
| record.
| One Of the Assessors present stated
that in his county the fences had been
taxed for the last six years, and that
the railroad paid the tax.
Rerkey sprung the question as to
whether or not snowsheds enhanced the
value Of a railroad any more than deep
cuts or level track. 1t was a question
with him whether such things as sheds
| ought to be assessed by either the Board
| of Equalization or County Assessors
Secretary of the State Board Of
| Equalization Coglan stated that fences
along railroads ware always assessed to
| the road by the County Assessors.
| A motion was made providing that
the conventions address query to the
| State Board of Equalization asking
| whether it was the duty of County AS
SCISSORS to assess fences along roads to
| the railroad companies, with a request
| that it be answered by noon to-day
| Secretary Coglan stated that there