Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-08-03


standing - Cspitntion Tax m Unknown
Ouautity--some Interesting Comparisons
The Need of a Change In the System
Plainly Apparent.
Since the manner in which city taxes
paid twice, through errors, should be
|efunded was discussed at length and
eft unsettled at the last meeting of
LJty Council there has been much
controversy among thinking taxpayers
bn the subject Councilman Oberly
III the Twelfth ward raised the point
Ind held that where money had been
aid twice the amount oyerpaid should
% returned by the collectors and not
by the city, claiming that there was
nly ono charge against the collector
pr the amount as originally levied.
A few days ago q reporter of Every
Evening interviewed the collectors on
he subject and they said that, while
he payment of tax money twice rarely
occurs, it does occur sometimes and Is
always turned into tho bank to the
bredit OF the city. Sometimes agents
Tor property get bills and take them
hway. Subsequently the owners come
n and pay the taxes and afterward the
bgents pay the money also. They are
bot permitted to do so if the discovery
made that the money has been paid
bnce, but sometimes, owing to the
lush, the collectors do not recall that
he money has been paid and as there
appears to be no occasion to refer to
the books, the money is received twice.
I'm such cases all of the money is
placed to the credit Of the city and the
collectors claim that it is the duty of
Council to refund the money and the
Responsibility is not on them ut all.
Both of the collectors declared that
there is no truth in the assertion that
money paid the second time goes to
their own accounts.
During the past week taxpayers have
discussed the matter freely and in con-
versations with city officials and bust
ness men. the general impression was
THAT the method is faulty and entails
loss on the city, since, if the assessor
land collector is charged only once ny
the city for the taxes he collects and
receives credit twice, when the city re-
funds the amount it unquestionably sus-
tains loss. Under this rule if one-half
pf all of the taxes levied and charged
against the assessor aud collector should
be paid twice and the amount turned
INTO the city treasury the account of
The assessor and collector would be
SETTLED in full and what remained on
his duplicate would be his without
question, while the city, being re-
buried to return one-half of the amount
Iaid to it would have only one-half of
The entire tax levy for its uses.
No less important than the question
Il overraid tax raised by the contro-
ersy in Council is the question of
he correctness of the assessment books.
1t has boon shown heretofore that
he assessment of the Filiben property,
hich was brought to the attention of
Touncil at the last meeting, was, by a
lerical error, raised in figures ON the
( hceving book from $1,000 to 90, 900.
he discovery Of this error lends to the
uestion as to the manner of making
b. the annual assessment The city
barter provides, with the minutest
btail, how this shall he done and
Ill authority is vested in the Board
Assessment, Revision and Appeals,
hich consists OF the president of
ouncil, chairman of tho finance com.
ittee and building inspector. When
be assessors have completed their
assessment and their books, which are
be books of original entries, are placed
nder the control of the board, the
oard may, il it so desires, have the
ooks added in order to ascertain the
egregate amount of the property
bown thereon, and it would seem to
contemplated by the law that this
bould be done. But as custom makes
w and sometimes unmakes it, it seems
10 have SO operated in this instance,
(. il nee it has been the practice for many
bars not to have the additions made
Id the original assessment books, but
10 return them to the assessors, who
thereupon make from the original
books what are termed receiving books.
The receiving books are supposed to be
E1xact copies of the books Of assess
&{aent and contain in addition to an
1emized statement of each taxable's
/; 1koperty the amount of the taxes
lharged against him.
The aggregate amount of the assess
Z 1ents, as shown by the receiving
4 poks, is reported by the assessors to
punoil and is made the basis of the
* levy. There being no attempt to
lance the receiving books with the
sessment books, there is every pos
biity of error, and, as the story
ees, some years ago, comparison
ling made between the receiving
poks and books of assessment, it was
und that there was difference of
900, 600 or more.
This is unquestionably one of the
psf glaring defects in the system and
mits of the possibility Of many in
curaoies and probable loss to the
BY
A comparison Of the totals of the
nual assessments for some years past
Yes not tend to establish the absolute
liability of the figures furnished to
buncil. The total valuation Of real
tate, subject to taxation for city and
hool purposes, reported TO Council
the years 1885 to 1899, inclusive. at
e time of making the levy each year,
rs as follows:
p5-City Observation-Disclosures. S37, 726, All
school. -......... 90 oo5, DOL
o-Clty OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. 81, I49, lou
school ...,.,.............. 80 w, 9ou
p7-City OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. 3D. l9O, 237
school. .................... 59,3l1' 10y
bS-City 1929, 3S5
School. 80, lag, 1856
b9-City ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 39,545. 302
Schooi...... 59,S4o, 4l4
It will be noticed that in the year
b5 there was difference of more
hn 81, 900, 900 between the assessment
city purposes and that for school
opposes, while in subsequent years