New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-03-20
TIE BASIS or ASSESSMENT.

CORRESPONDENT at Dobbs Ferry takes eX-
rep1ion 10 some recent remarks in these col
umns concerning the disputed assessment cases
An Westchester County, as follows:
yo,r editorial Of last Tuesday on the Mount
Pleasant Whistle" is largely misleading Mr.
Rockefeller has won his point. but the JuSuce
OF Judge Barnard's decision places the assessoIs
NJ Mount Pleasant IN the light of having COM
United great wrong. if not crime IN assess assess.
ing Il is claimed. Mr.. Rockefeller excessively
Two years ago Justice Keogh by MS charge 10
The Grand Jury at White Plains. caused the IN
dictment OF nearly every assessor IN Westminster
county on the ground that 1t was their sworn
duty 10 assess all property at It's full Value' A.
had heretofore been the custom IN most Oh 'ne
towns to asscss property at what, IN thelr peSt
Judgment such property would bring az a forced
sale Az a result Of Judge keoghs acton an
assessments have been made win the view ol
arr,,inc at nearly a full valuation. II IS an
easv matter 10 fix the value OF small holdlhss,
and such properties in most cases are assessed
e. about their cost. In the matter OF the forced
assessment Of 100000 or thereaDouts on AR.
Rockefeller's property by Judge barnard IT IS
a mere hagatelle Of the amount that mas peeH
expended on ii. IT Is well known that MS prop,
ertv Al Mount Pleasant has netted him good
deal more than 81 100000 II all property IN the
Town was assessed In the same proportion "a
20 cost land why notD a smah piece Sos sIds
$1,000 should be assessed not 70 exceed STV
I, IS no doubt the fact that If Mr.. Rockefeller
should erdeavOr to market his holdlnss Ut
Mount Pleasant IL would be difficult Tor MN u
matter IS no concern OF The assessors. Every
poor man IN this vicinity pays on his hoidlns'
tayes on the full value OF his property. The
average wealthy man does not pay TO th'
amount Of one half Of the original cost or MS
yronerty or IS not assessed 10 one-half or tht
orieinai value Taxation by assessment
As an intricate matter. and 20 lay an assessment
without friction IS one OF the imposaibihties
Our correspondent makes the error OF conius
fng cost with value. There is a vast difference
between them The latter is the true basis OF
assessment; the former * not man might
he fooled into paying for q place far more than
81 was worth or he might get ii for far less
than II is worth or il might be given 10 hin
outright In such cases ii is evident the cost
of il 10 him would not be n fair basis Of as
sessment Many OF the poor men whose
farms. as our correspondent says are assessed
AT their full value, acquired those farms by in
herltance and did not pay Il cent for them. Oh
the basis Of cost TO the present owner, then
they would not be assessed at all; which would
be Inanifesily unjust.
But. says our correspondent. the assessment
ordered by the Court Is mere tthe Of what
has been expended upon The place in question
True. But neither Is the amount expended
upon n place correct basis Of assessment
Suppose man spent s1,00o,000 upon $l0p
farm in digging for gold or boring for oil. with
out finding any. and at the end Of it all the
l6Eu was worth no more than at the beginning