Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-02-21
OPPOSE
W|LSON-RECORO
TAXATION PLAN
Point Out to Judiciary Commit.
tee Results if Scheme
Succeeds.
tFrom a STAN Correspondent

SltlOn mas tDODDeu up lTOIh all SeCtloil5
of the State against the Wilson Record
scheme to abolish county tax boariS.
Taxation experts appeared before me
House judiciary committee late ysster-
day afternoon and voiced their protest
against two of the three Macksey bills
80. 40 and Al. The latter is not
objected to.
The three important taxation bills
provide, first, to abolish the county tax
boards; second, to wipe out the Hiliery
maximum tax act OF 1906. and, third. to
create a State court of taxation OF
three members to take the place of the
present State Board of Taxation.
Essex County Men Oppose.
Essex county sent a number ~ tax
experts to oppose the county tax Joard
repeater at the hearing.
Major Carl Lentz. formerly a mem
Der of the State Board Of Taxation;
Laurence T. Fell, a member Of the
Essex County Tax Board; Lathrop An
derson, a former member Of hat body,
and Herbert Boggs, assistant city
counsel of Newark. were among those
who appeared before the committee.
All of the Essex men expressed them
selves as opposed to the repeal Of the
county tax board act. In fact, that
was the sentiment expressed by every
person who appeared at the hearing.
FavOrs County Boards.
Major Lentz aid he was present at
/ A. er,eroractiOu of Cifty CnYnGaf IQTnaQ
r.. Nugent, Of Newark, in order to
place before the board his ideas on tax
alton laws growing out of sixteen
years experience as a member of the
State board. He made it clear that he
was not present In the role of an ad-
vocate for or against the laws pro-
posed. His line of argument was such,
however, that his preference for the
maintaining of the county boards was
shown to pe strongly rooted.
Concerning the Hillery maximum tax
act. which forbids municipalities from
levying q rate OF more h s1.7b per
each 800 of valuation, he said that he
was opposed to the theory that takes
the affairs of municipalities out OF
their own hands in n form, whether
be a tax question or some other
question. On being questioned by
members of the committee, he said.
however, that the law had been bene-
ecial in many respects.
Lentz made the point concerning the
county boards that II they were aboi-
ished the old system under which the
State labored for years would be re-
vived. In that view the members OF
the committee concurred. No substi-
tute wal proposed for the county
boards except direct appeal to the new
State court provided for in the act
creating that tribunal. That was a
proposal which other speakers. among
them MI. Anderson, described as too
impractical for consideration. The
State court act In itself does not re-
peal the county board law.
Lentz further argued In behalfo or the
county boards that they had equalized
taxation as between municipalities
and as between individuals. Too much
politics entered into the work OF the
local assessors when. under the pre-
vious system. they sat In review 10
hear appeals from their own assess
ments. The major cited he increase
in ratables in Essex County as be ng
largely due to the operation OF the
county board law.
MF. Anderson HISO ODlCNIC0 " hAV
nronosed repeater of the county board
law on the ground that no substitute
was furnished He too. argued, that
politics WIS the bane of the assessors
who were left to their own discretion
before the county boards were estab-
lished.
For state Court Act.
Mr.. Boggs spoke specifically for the
| eA-An 1900. pnR Hn nnnl Tnnnnnn II IN
the ground that two of its members
would be awryers The court, he said.
would have 10 deal principally with
questions Of law. He said II would he
particularly eficacious in handl. ng such
cases as the city of Newark has had
TO deal with, meaning the Prudential
Fund and the Fidelity Trust Company
case.
Mr.. Fell cited the ratables of Essex
County and the general satisfaction
that citizens obtained in taxation mat
tors In Essex as a reason for main
tanning the boards. Joseph p. Mclean,
secretary Of the Board of Taxation of
Hudson County, filed a brief with the
committee In behalf Of the retention Of
the county boards. He went deliberately
into the evils of the old system and
cited instances of fraud, bribery and
blackmail in the days when h local
assessors did not have to fear the
authority Of a higher local power.
From statistics he showed that the
number of appeals had diminished
yearly In Hudson County and that at
the present time It is found neces-
sary to make reductions In very few
cases.
Thomas B. Fay. of Long Branch.
appeared in behalf OF wealthy property
owners In Monmouth County to speak
In favor of retaining the county boards
He also filed a brief to show that Non
mouth County has benefited from the
operation OF the act,
City Attorney z. G. C. Bleakely. Of
Camden, argued In favor Of keeping
the county boards.