Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1911-06-29

roll was vastly increased and the
fixed rate would raise fund far
greater than needed, the courts would
undoubtedly say that public policy
required the power to be vested in
such governing board to meet such
an exigency.
Objections to tiaphazard Valuations.
Where there are so many objec-
tionable features without one redeem
ing reason it is difficult to particu-
larizc. l thought at first the inequal-
tiles in the average assessed value Of
the several counties under which
some counties paid upon less than 20
per cent and others at nearly fifty
percent of the real value, was the
worst feature, because under such
system the higher assessed counties
paid much more than their share of
the amount required for state pur-
poses. AS it requires a certain def
mite fixed amount to pay the expenses
OF the state and Of the various coun-
ties, it would make no difference in
the amount each individual would
have to pay as taxes, whether all of
the property was assessed at twenty
per cent of its value or at its full
value. Each individual taxpayer
would have to pay exactly the same
amount in either event.
/ find, however, on examining the
assessment rolls, for the year of 1910
and preceding years, that in many Of
the counties property of some tax
payers has been assessed as low as five
per cent of its real value, while the
property Of other taxpayers in the
same counties, and the same kind, has
been assessed at as high as fifty per
cent, in other words the favored one
paid rate only one-tenth as great as
the taxpayer not favored. While I've
known for years that favoritism had
been shown I had no idea of its extent.
1t is needless to say that those who
have been SO favored are uniformly
against the full cash valuation system.
Can Reduce Special School Levles.
Comparatively few school districts,
so far as | am informed levied a
special school tax upon the SUPPOSE
ton that the assessed value of the
property i'll the district would not be
raised. A few instances, however,
have been called to my attention
where the school boards have seem.
ingly assumed t..a same special rate
would be needed under the new sys-
tenn as under the o.l. This, of course,
where the value of the property has
been quadrupled, would raise four
times the amount necessary for such
special school purposes. In such cases
the fault is jointly with the local
school board and the people of the
school district. Full notice was given
to all the people long before such
school elections were had, that the
full cash value system would be in
augurated this year.
Although the people of such school
districts would have themselves alone
to blame for this increased special
tax, and would be entitled to but scant
sympathy under such circumstances,
especially in view of the fact that the
unnecessary money wouldn't be squan-
dered, but would be available for
succeeding years, still l do not appre-
hend any particular trouble upon this
score. As particular solution Of the
problem would suggest the school
boards in the few districts that have
so acted, would send an amended re
turn to the assessor and county clerk
lowering the rate that had been sci
to proper figure, that such lowered
Continued On page s.