New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-20

a deduction would simply be a g1rt 10 'ie'n '.
their rents. Other property holders wouiu hho
70 have their rentals deducted from their 'hAo''
II cannot be said that the rentals paiu 'iie H,'
include the taxes When most or these ren'"''
were agreed upon there were no francnise "iAe'
II bargain was made while franchises
wore vet taxed In fact but not in name IL WAS
tho corporatjon that paid the tax In aooi''oi'
IN tho rental n the rental Of franchise 10
high lite value at a sale will be correspondence
low because of that fixed charge ohuer 'n ~,
hill ga II now stands honest assessors WIN
consider that rental charge as an eieihen' -
dstermining the franchise value, as we nave
rrer,ouslv poipted out and there Is no reason
,or taking II into account a second time D! ap-
soIute deduction Of the rents from the taxes III
tho crude fashion provided In one dra1t Oh d
suooested amendment II all percentages paiu
tor franchises are to he deducted from FRANCHISE
ta.es a CORPORATION might become a puohc creo-
,tor instead Of a contributor to public revenues
Franchises vary In value. Some are pracucaliy
WORTHLESS There may be charge wnlle tne
owner is making no money. In tnat case nc
ro,oht he assessed at nothing and nave ME
rent deducted from nothing TWO franchises
~ identical character will differ in value ac-
cordne TO the fixed charges upon them ana II
snv corporations are already heavily Durdeneo
nv pavments to the public treasury, ms those IN
Ruffalo are said to be, then their FRANCHISE
assessment must be correspondngly heh'' a
rebate or deduction from any just ana inteiii-
cont assessment would be favor not accorded
to other property.
Tho nIan of STATE assessment Is certainly
not logical. but has reasons Of expedience IN
its favor State board in most cases cannot
have the knowledge Of q local board. There
Is fear of oppression by local assessors our
nresent State assessors are above suspicion
Yet If we were to disregard their high character
and look at the general question we should say
there WAS more danger in concentration than
In diffusion of the taxing authority central
body so disposed could WELD a tremendous
political power over corporations. Moreover
the courts are always open to the over-assesseo'
The law hooks are full Of cases where assess
roon,S have been set aside as excessive. The
duty Of the assessor, local or State would be 20
assess nronertv ND to It's fair value. II he does,
the property-owner has no reason to complain
and n he does more. the property owner has a
sure remedy in the courts; and 1t is good
thing TO have great corporations who have the
means and the disposition to fight unjust taxa
individuals for then II these officers abuse
their power they are likely to be called 10
account.
On the other hand. 1t is to be admitted that
In dealing with corporations dishonest local
assessment might be practically more harmrui
than the same dishonesty in dealing with the
petty accounts of individuals. Under-assess-
ment Is as powerful an engine of corruption as
over-a assessment and more difficult to prevent
II schemes of favoritism or blackmail are at
tempted Then, too, the question OF franchises
from different municipalities making up a
single property is one difficult Of adjustment by
local assessors Considerations of this sort may
fairly justify the Capitalization OF assessment
even though II Is not logical The tax Itself
will not be impaired by the method OF assess
ment, and II anything can be gained, either
in soothing the feelings or disarming the fears
of anybody, by the change, there is no reason TO
object TO It seriously. But whoever levies the
tax. It should be levied. as the Governor says,
on a direct assessment Of franchises themselves,
and that tax should not be negatved by deduc-
lions Of other pretended tax payments which
are not tax payments at all.