New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-06-03

n IN vol
eI?sss s!sSk soc Sse 8 s psr F ssS
RE ad;oinns building the Drexel Building Thie sn
sdysaass of sSy,ss to rs sSgSsr Is
cent what nab c. sne9 ad the ad
3Sinins per eens nothing TO be ssa
hOGs IS constantly Changing e yss Il
year IN and year out rpw nseien s and we'll
informed Judgment made by that anstoss
In ISIS ,s ss'p tere e0 that should lead him dpsr,
from II radically in 1893? A" aii-S'' " 3d.
s' oIf te fact that the Drexel Building was
fronting on wast could by any cum the hank
S1aaa ior Tuning right dwn from the Drexe
EuildnF were we're. y SI;1drS az SO n'"'n 'o"''
Q-No % wali-st, the Leather "REMINISCENCES Manu- .sa n,bsr
Bank? Al gave you the reason lot 'na' '"s ''"''
o-wha, was It? A.Bank buildings have G rsa
sssets IN the city Of 2ewYork in the past be-
they get DEDUCTION Of be hes shares Of stock
and IL don't make any difference to them whe'he'
the o1 1eh ssaf that any placing
higher valuation on that property 49, III raised
the Ssss as w fsa s6mehns ee giving
reason why we did not follow that rule
RULE FAVORED THE BANKS.
o-You say that is unfair rule? AwTns banks
were satisfied with the effect of it. They were sat
s course ,hss were sssed' because was
Mr. Moss-You gave that reason for b not M Sq
Knox right alongside. was advanced so per cent?
HYou Compared NJ Knox Wv, Win h. hR Knox was ad.
vsaced g per G1 cent and an ordinary brick building
n Ann and F Sa aona BnS noSns
that is s the Ssn YOU sSod not be Advanced
wSy We're T the banks on Wais advanced single
cent? That aSpeRSfs q tSe oH as YEAR
Won are sueaking now Of the Knox building Within
year or M KR Value has put that in
which he says that he bought tnat corner a' q"
P 1TSa a' Goes not apply As uscatlOn
for single piece of property In New orK a. Goes
uean To ne S owns have served
guide fer s SSsn S q OPPsGsa the
o.-Not necessarily? A-No;, ., thu tnor corne,
showed e VIDE Of great appreciation would not
apply to the bank next door to It? AWNo; the
any other part is entirely independent and separate
from any Other pS here IN i1E has and
dependent value OF its own. and so everybody
'n oD e You not think the completion Of the
Paul Building produced any Nst' SpUh
n nSnk yslq RE q the properly Oh the IN
o-And that you say as man verses on VALUES Values
IN NewYork in principles OF taxaIohi CO. 81 i'm as
sessahle valuation. ~.
o-yes what you would consider an asssessa5 s
Justify the running up q NE asse ass
y ysu cent Of w SRs %od asy
the he Park MaS1 a a sans enough
as compared with that
Mr.. FEITNER GIVES REASONS
Q.-And if that reason is good as applied to the
banks Wall;st why are they not assessed al an
have necessarily been assessed at an equal ratio
o-Here is the Leather lanufseturers 81, Bank "a az
Al at nos s 81 A and So Wa-s Y per cent The Metre
pOlitan Trust Company Nos 81 and 80 Mast a
tionAl Bank Nos Al and ~ WaiI,st.; 50 Us per
and AZ wali-st.. 0 LII per cent. Why shouldn't
they have been raised at an equal ratio an heinz
the feures for 1879 being the same man that made
'H eB Bar ts' trust sSp@nss TT9s SOm
o lGTf y Vary VAR as between banks Here have
Block az A:That really may not apply to the
United States National Bank.
may nay mot haye a az be may
have applied, and it may not have A-That de-
ponds upon circumstances, -,..,
There. are circumstances in every case .oo,,.
Q.-You would not consider It an unreasonable 1,tIs
t ,hns re are that influenced those re-
I psopfss A G'e dOns think that is fair
Qvery well Now the Mutual Life b BUILDING I'D nS
nGsf g. TgTp to Pks@ what Fased from
that SS ass a. That Ross per cent and
o.-The Mutual Life Building, Nassau-st.. in
down on wiIi G s A@They satisfied with
that. 49,. -..,, :. ,.a.. ,,o o,ro,,,
stances? A.-That is one reason why your assump-
give come down on william,st., and here is
No Wams the hu ,d6 S Of Nathan STEPHENS 0
ps eeS n 1Gm 5D now the
Mutual Life Insurance Company was properly in
10 Wiliiam-s, and run up a much smaller and in
conspicuous building l22 per cent and then the ad-
run up from $4,000 to $4,000 S 10 per cent So
we have two adjoining buildings. one 58la per cent
advance and the other at l22? A-The same general
answer.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEPUTY.
Q.-what Is the same general answer Abe
pending upon the judgment 1S Of the deputy
s soe he a af S We're
they are correct now. take it,
Q.-How did you make him correct those incorrect
.Q.-Now. want to call your attention to another
piece OF properly IN the same district You haven
3 figures have been brought to me. 1t is Block No
way and No IS Is from 90
70 $50 COO 100 cent, while the adjoining property
cent This piece Of property at So IS chy 81 sfi
the owner has stated. will bring less than $4,000
cent Of its real value? A.-Those statements ar,
Q-No but supposing an owner says that he Il
willing to sell for $4,000 A.-No you have to lool
OIL ask you TO look at that as an example OF the
equal assessment. and suggest to you that II was
equality the unness Of the sa hP pOGf Is n tine While H.
sast increase was 100 per cent the Increase the
a dozen buildings 1t runs down at figures varying
K from 80 TO Il per cent. while he alone stands at lo5
per cent increase; that is block No 2S1 No Is Mer-
cer-st. A.-No. IS Mercer-st.?
Q;-Yes. sir And how Is It that with this gen
era increasing Of assessed values that no increas
was put upon the important and valuable property
n IN ne neighoorhood Of Chambers-st. and West
broadway. such the Cosmopolitan Hotel the
Schepp Building. and other large grocery stores
there, which we all know-wholesale? Al think
that the Judgment OF the deputies in that case has
since been sustained ~ ~
JUSTIFIED BY EMO SALE.
,Q-How? Did anybody complain at NOT ba,,,o
his value increased? ANo The Emo sale has si
place IN West Broadway since and we Ana ~
upon that Emo sale we generally inst a n u
what the property sold for In one cs SO 800
we were little more than what the nronor, .'anh
Tor but in all the other cases. it Was abon, so a1