Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1903-02-04
GROSS IN
EQUAL|T|ES
Annual Report Of the Terri
torial Board of Equali-
zation.
ONLY FOUR COMPLETE ROLLS
Many Instances Of Grave In
justice Are Pointed 0at
and Recommendations
Made.

LII uuCI
The report of the Territorial Board of
Equalization to Governor Otero is re-
plete with pertinent examples Of varia-
tions in assessment and full of recon-
mendations for changes in existing
laws. The board has met semi-annual-
| ly and endeavored to equitably adjust
the taxes complained of, but at the out
set OF such work is met with the diff
Guilty that it can only act in cases
where proper appeals are taken from
| the different boards of county commits
sioners, when it is apparent upon the
| face of the tax rolls of the different
counties, that the property is not as
| sessed in that county in an equal and
uniform manner, and in no two coun-
| ties are the valuations ON the same
| kind of property the same. For in
stance, agricultural lands vary from 81
cents valuation per acre in Otero coun-
| ty, to S13.S5 per acre in Taos county;
grazing lands from 20 cents per
acre in Taos county to $1.S5 in Dona
Ana county.
The total assessed valuation of the
territory, subject to tax in the year 1902
is $3S, ,633, 1893, a net increase over 1901 of
| 81, ,656,945. The counties showing in
crease of assessed valuation are: Luna,
$112,265; Sierra, $153,O65 Otero, $161, 122;
San Miguel, $685. ,42S; Santa Fe, 1929, 319;
| Union $61, 1927; Chaves, $193,O7S; Colfax,
| $S4, ,772; Taos, $179,0SS; Socorro, $37,290;
Mora, $1S,393; Dona Ana, $77,S56; San
Juan, $557; Eddy, $200,329; Rio Arriba,
I$43O12; Guadalupe $212,151; or a total
increase of 50, 2,325,939.
The counties showing a decrease are:
Valencia, s3S,SS9 Lincoln, $2,419; Grant,
| s2S1, ,692; Mckinley, 1,722; Bernalillo,
| $124, ,265; or total decrease of $66S,9SS.
| Chaves, Grant, Mckinley and Berna-
| lilo counties alone sent In balanced
rolls accompanied by complete alb
stracts as required by law. The rolls
from the other counties were more or,
less incorrect and some were in very;
bad shape. They were incorrect not
only in the correct amount of assessed
valuation, but in the extension of ter
ritorial tax levies, which for 1902 was
certified to the different county boards
at 1899 mills Santa Fe county return
ed rolls with the territorial tax extend
ed at Is mills, Valencia at II mills and
Lincoln at 1929 In eight counties the
summary exceeds the total of the difT-
erent cassifications and in seven coun-
ties the total value of different classifi-
cations exceeds the amount shown In
the summaries. Santa Fe and Rio Ar
riba counties returned no abstract.
The report states that a great deal of
property escapes taxation. For exam
pie, in 1901, Bernalillo county returned
on valuation of horses, $25,OO0, and, as
compared with the returns of other
counties for that year, this was very
low. For 1902, the return of Bernalillo
county on horses is $4,000, falling off
of over rs per cent. The report says:
''Either the stock has been removed
from tho county, returned at greatly
reduced valuations or escaped taxa
ton"
Another evil which should be correc-
ted is the placing of different valua-
tions, by county assessors and boards
of county commissioners, of the differ
ent counties on property of like value.
To show how great this variation is
the value per acre of agricultural lands
as fixed in the different counties is CIV
en-: Sierra, $5.79; Guadalupe, $S.05; Dona
Ana, s9.65; Bernalillo, not given; Col
fax, $500; Eddy, Sc; Rio Arriba, no
data; Taos, $1S.S5; Mora, $947; Lincoln,
s1O12; Luna, $3.06; Otero, 81 cents;
Chaves, 5000; Mckinley s1.64; Union,
not reported; Santa Fe, no data; Socor-
70, s1O.25; San Miguel, SASS; Grant,
s1o.S6; Valencia, $2.1S; San Juan, $11.92
| Valuation in different counties Of the
same classes Of property, other than
lands, differ as widely. For example,
Bernalillo county returns 1,20O head or
horses at IS per head, while San Miguel
county returns 1889 head of horses at
SIS per head, more than three times as
many at three times the valuation.
The report refers to the action taken
by the board to make a raise on mer-
chandise, city and town lots last year
on account of the valuation being SO
palpably unjust, unfair and inequitable
and the decision by Judge Mcmillan
that the board had the right only to
assess property belonging to railroads,
telegraph, telephone and sleeping car
companies and no power whatever to
assess any other property except when
acting on appeals from the action OF
the boards of county commissioners. 1t
is recommended the board be given
mower to act as board of review OF
the action taken by the several boards
of county commissioners. The COM
,nissioners now review the action of the
assessors and this board should review
their action on behalf of the territory.
The report says: 1T is lamentable
fact that several Of the larger counties
seem to vie with each other in reducing
their present very inadequate assess
ments.
! This is no doubt primarily to avoid