Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1912-09-20

The unfortunate situation was
again presented to the legislature in
all it's bearings in 1911 but. measured
by results, the outcome was even
more discouraging than in 1909.
A bill providing that all property
should be assessed at SO per cent of
"its true and full value in money"
after being amended 10 read 80 1-3
per cent, passed the Senate with lit
tie opposition late in the session and
was transmitted to the House. After
careful consideration by the House
committee on taxes and tax laws it
was again radically amended and as
it finally passed that body. provided
that all property subject to the gen.
eral property tax should be divided,
for purposes of taxation, into four
| classes. Glass / was to cover tie
homestead of the taxpayer which was
to be assessed at 33 1.3 per cent of
its true and full value. Glass 2 was
to include all other real estate which
was to be assessed at SO per cent of
its true value. Class 8 was to in
clude household goods and furniture,
wearing apparel, musical instruments,
and sewing machines which were to
be assessed at 20 per cent of full and
true value. And Glass 4 covered all
personal property not included in
Glass which was to be assessed at
SO per cent of full value.
Upon the return of the bill to the
Senate for concurrence in the House
amendments the Senate refused to
concur. Conference committees were
appointed in both bodies for the pur-
pose of reaching an agreement, but
in the rush and turmoil of the closing
hours Of the session the committees
were unable to get together and the
bill, like its predecessor in 1909,
failed to reach final passage.
The troublesome condition still
confronts US and is productive of in
creasing embarrassment in every
direction. Letters from local assessors
and county officers are constantly be-
ing received asking for instructions
as to what percentage Of true and
full value should be used in the valu-
alton of property for taxation The
only reply which the commission has
been able to make is to call attention
to the statute prescribing that pro-
perty should be assessed at its true
and full value and to the legislative
resolution requesting that it should
not be so assessed.
Justice alike to taxpayers and tax
officials demands that the matter
should no longer be left in the chaotic
and contradictory condition in which it
is at the present time. Either the
laws now obstructing the assessment
of property at true and full value
should be so an ended that it can be
SO assessed. or provision should be
made by law for its assessment at
! some specified per cent of full value.
The situation should be squarely met
and the question solved without fur.
ther delay.
There is nothing sacred about the
"true and full value'' standard. ANY
> easily figured fraction of "full anC
true value" would anwser nearly a:
we'll. The important thing is not the
standard but the enforcement of it.
If we were STARTING anew we woulC
unhesiratingly recommend the ''ful
, value" standard; but in the face o1
the long established custom in the
D state of assessing at from 25 to sc
+ per cent of full value and tie practi
cal difficulties in the way of amending
the many statutes which stand in the
O way of such consummation, we have
i. no hesitancy. in recommending tha
the assessment be placed upon a fxeC
basis of so per cent of full value
n We believe that this basis can b,
! strictly maintained Throughout thu
entire state without injustice to any
o body. Or if classified basis seem
h more desirable to the legislature. W,
would suggest that the classification
be based upon the character of tn,
property. productive propert,
a like household goods and wearing ap
i. parel to be assessed on a basis of sa,
$ 25 per cent and property that can b,
j.. made productive, on basis of 81
: per cent of full value. The all i'm
q portant thing, however. is that tn
9 whole matter be definitely settled a
the earliest moment SO that the Law
can be strictly enforced.