New-York tribune., 1901-08-10
TAEATIOY TNDER 4 BLANKET.

The Court Of Appeals based its recent refusal
10 allow the public inspection of the rolls Of
this city. which the legislature evidently in
tended 10 ordain, hut apparently without the
use OF sufficiently explicit language. solely on
the argument of convenience. II did not dis
pute that a taxpayer. whether on real or per
sonal property, might have n legitimate interest
In the assessments, personal as we'll as real, of
other persons. IG its finding, however. IT up
held a decision Of the Appellate Division
founded on the astonishing doctrine that il Is
no concern Of a taxpayer whether anybody else
pays personal taxes or not Justice Rumsey in
his opinion said:
The only question that he 1.-THE petitioner to
see the rolls raise is whether not he
should he assessed at all. or whether the amount
OF the assessment is excessive. To ascertain
that fact il is not necessary for him 10 know
about the assessment Of any one else. because
his assessment is 10 be determined by the
amount Of his personal property. and a COM
parson with the assessment of any one else
would not he Of any use to him: and. therefore.
when he learns the amount Of his own assess
ment he knows all that il is material for him
10 know for the protection Of his rights.
II is true that absolute equality is not 10 he
expected in the assessment Of personal prop
erty, ana person cannot escape personal taxes
by pointing ont some neighbor worth as much
he is hut assessed for less. II IS not true
however. that a taxpayer ran have no concern
with the personal assessments Of others. It is
possible thar a corrupt Incompetent Board
Of Tax Commissioners. irstead Of making
5osl5 personal assessments might pick out five
hundred or one hundred or even one man to
pay personal taxes. It is not conceivable that
any court would uphold taxes so levied on one
or five hundred. vet. according 20 the doctrine
of the Appellate Division. neither the one nor
the five hundred would have any legal way Of
discovering this outrage and invoking the proper
remedies. Each would merely know that he
was assessed. and be told that il was none of
his business whether anybody else was assessed
or not. This is an extreme supposition Of in
equality. hut between il and the rea easonable
equality required by law is a range Of possible
abuse. which. If known. would undoubtedly he
corrected by the courts and which can only
be known by the publicity of the lists which
the courts say is not provided for by law. Re
Gently the Supreme Court in the Second Depart
ment did make such correction. In the Say
Vile union school district on Long Island IF
teen persons we're assessed for personal prop
erty 10 the aggregate amount of sl5.7OO. They
contested, and Justice Smith. vacating the as
sessments, said:
The testimony taken in these proceedings
justifes the conclusion that from Information ac-
cessible 20 the assessors by the exercise OF rea-
sonable diligence very large number of per
sons who are not assessed for personal prop-
erty should have been assessed. and a very large
amount OF property liable TO taxation has not
been assessed IN this school district Upon this
evidence 1 cannot say that a general assess
lnent OF personal property made IN the
town. and the REALTORS are justified IN appealing