The record-union., 1899-08-31
OPPOSE HIGHER TAX ROLLS.
OFFICIALS OF SANTA CLARA
AND SANTA CRUZ
Argue Their Cases Before the State
Board of Equalizers-Mendo
cino To-day.

Officials of Santa Clara and Santa
Cruz Counties appeared before the
State Board of Equalization yesterday
in response to citations to show why
the tax rolls of these counties should
not be raised. Chairman Brown pre-
sided.
Santa Clara was represented by AS
SCISSOR L. A. Splitter, Hall P. Austin
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors,
John Roll and Fred M. Stern.
Santa Cruz was represented by AS
SCISSOR Frank Mattison and Supervisor
Ed White
Santa Clara, was heard first. As
SCISSOR Spitzer's statement showed an
increase in this years assessment over
that of 1898, Of $326, ,2S5.
The assessments were: For 1893,
values of land, $32099,030: improve
ments, $13, ,366,3 $40; personal property,
81. 237 ,905; money and solvent credits,
1881, $50; total, $50,054, 1856.
For 1S99-Values of land, $50, ,254, :
$50; improvements, $13,6S2, ,535; per-
sonal property, $685. .025; money and
solvent credits, $459,030; total, $780,
3S1. 40.
Mr.. Austin thought the county
it asked for a 5 per cent. reduction.
which was granted on the showing
made. He believed the same reasons
would apply now as then. He under
stood that the railroads in the county
had not been raised.
Chairman Brown asked if the South
ern Pacific had not been raised and
Mr.. Austin said he had reference to
the narrow gauge road. Assessor
Splitter had raised the assessment
$325,O and a 10 per cent. raise would
be out of all reason. The reason for
a difference in the assessment of town
lots was that last year the City AS
SCISSOR assessed them and this year
they were assessed by the County AS
SCISSOR, who did not assess as high as
the City Assessor.
Mr.. Splitter said he did not intend,
when he started to assess this year, to
increase the assessment, but had done
SO. His assessments in some past
years had been reduced by the Board
of Equalization, but he had never
changed it much himself. Santa
Clara is a good county and he wished
TO keep its valuation at the same fig
ure, in order that other counties might
not claim that it was too low, and ask
for reductions that would lower the
State assessment People in his coun-
ty complained that they were assessed
more than the property was worth, but
he had pointed out to them that the
law required him to assess it at cash
value. In regard to outside town lots,
they were falling in value since the
boom. AS an instance, he bought a lot
for S110 last week that is assessed for
1915 and he had bought others for
which he had never been able to get
his money back for them. THAT 1
swear to, gentlemen, and you have
never caught me in lie yet" said Mr..
Splitter, and there was a general
laugh.
No. Splitter is truthful" said a
member of the board.
Mr.. Splitter cited a number of cases
~of depreciation of property in San
Jose and Mr.. Roll cited a case of fore
closure last week on a mortgage of
ST, 800, where the property only brought
$4,000.
Equalizer Toland said that Mr.. Spit
zer had taken him through the county
and pointed out a number of pieces Of
property, both of the best and the
poorest and explained the reasons for
his assessment of them. He was in
terested in finding out about values
and assessments. He was satisfied that
the assessment of the grain growing
land is double that of grain lands in
Butte County and thought that the
fruit growers would be able to show
why their assessments were just.
Mr. Splitter said the grain lands We're
mixture of adobe and gravel land and
brought from six to nine sacks of wheat
in dry years and nothing in wet years.
1t will not grow good fruit. He an
swered a number of questions about
the quality of land and its products in
different parts of the county. Property
in Santa Clara has deteriorated within
the past three years and he had aimed
to assess it at cash value but although
there is much land for sale, there have
been no sales and the cash value is
hard to get at.
Equalizer L. II. Brown read a list of
values and assessments and asked If
the assessment was not about two
thirds of the value. Mr.. Splitter said