New-York tribune., 1901-08-10
TAXATION UNDER A BLANKET.

The Court of Appeals based its recent refusal
10 allow the public inspection of the tax rolls of
this city. which the legislature evidently in
tended 10 ordain, but apparently without the
use Of sufficiently explicit language. solely on
the argument of convenience. 1t did not dis
pute that a taxpayer. whether on real or per-
sonaI property, might have a legitimate interest
In the assessments personal as we'll real of
other persons. IG its finding, however, it up
held a decision of the Appellate Division
founded on the astonishing doctrine that it Is
no concern of a taxpayer whether anybody else
pays personal taxes not. Justice Rumsey in
his opinion said:
The only question that he 1.-THE petitioner to
see the rollsl can raise is whether or not he
should be assessed at all, or whether the amount
of the assessment is excessive. To ascertain
that fact il is not necessary for him to know
about the assessment Of any one else. because
his assessment is 10 be determined by the
amount of his personal property. and COM
parson with the assessment of any else
when he learns the amount Of his own assess
ment he knows all that it is material for him
to 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, and person cannot escape personal taxes
by pointing out some neighbor worth much
as he is but assessed for less. 1t is not true
however. that a taxpayer can have no concern
with the personal assessments Of others. It is
possible that a corrupt or incompetent Board
of Tax Commissioners, irstead Of making
50S15 personal assessments, might pick out five
hundred or one hundred or even one man 70
pay personal taxes. II is not conceivable that
any court would uphold taxes so levied on one
or five hundred, yet. according TO 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 he 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 reasonable
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 were assessed for personal prop
erty to the aggregate amount of sl5,700. They
contested. and Justice Smith. vacating the as
sessments. said:
The testimony taken in these proceedings
justiies the conclusion that from information ac-
cessible 70 the assessors by the exercise of rea-
sonable diligence a very large number of per-
sons who are not assessed for personal prop
erty should have been assessed, and 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
inent of personal property made IN the
town. and the relators are justified in appealing