Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1912-12-27
Tax Commission Finds Mass
Continue. From Page One.)

@ yCOnLlnUcr frnVu F1yo Onc,D
been The mode Of assessment since
statehood. A large number of asses
sors are elected, instructed to list
and appraise the taxable property. No
official has the power to enforce his
views upon them and they go forth
and appraise property with as many
standards of ratio and rs many theO-
ries of value as there are assessors.
This results in an assessment which
is anything but uniform and In a tax
burden unjust and ~unequitable. 1t is
the contention of the commission that
unless property is listed at its true
value, or a uniform ratio Of its true
value, that it is utterly impossible for
any board of review or equalization
to remedy the defect.
THE ineffectiveness of the present
method OF aDpraisement,' says the
report, was shown by replies receiv-
ed to inquiries sent out shortly after
the organization of this commission.
The ratios of appraisement tG the true
value of taxable property as shown
by the replies were most astounding,
ldhSlIlS HUN nOlllliS W 10 DCI FCSlll.
One assessor in Williams county a.
bored under the hallucination that he
was returning property for taxation
at Is per cent. Of its true value.
The favorite ratios was 40 per cent.
The range vas as follows: 0
All domestic animals, 20, %, 33 1-3,
40 and so per cent.
Household furniture, 20, %, 80, 33
1-3, 40, so and 60 per cent.
Farm implements, 20, %, 80, 80 1.3,
40, 80 and 60 per cent.
Moneys and credits, nothing, 80 and
40 per cent.
Merchandise, %, SO Is, 50 and 40
per cent.
Town lots, 10, 20, %, 80, 33 1-3, 80,
40, 40, so and Is per cent.
Farm lands, Is, 20, %, 80, SO IS, 50,
40, SO and Is per cent.
Structures, 20, %, 33 1-3, 81, 40, 50
and 60 per cent.
While there can be no question
that many Of the assessors endeayor-
eG to make a true statement of the "a.
tlos actually used by them, it is too
evident that many of them simply put
down grossly exaggerated percentag-
es with the hope that in some manner
1t might help to reduce the tax in
their respective assessing Districts"
The wide divergence among diff
ferent assessors was not the only as
founding fact brought out by these in
quimes. Almost as great 0 difference
in ratios was revealed among the diff
!, ferent items returned by the same as
SCISSOR. For instance, one rural as
!, SCISSOR reported that he appraised do
! mestic animals at 80 per cent; house
9 hold furniture at 10 per cent; farm
/ supplements at 40 per cent; farm
lands at 80 per cent, and structures
at 80 per cent. No two items were
: assessed at the same ratio to actual
value. Another assessor listed all of
his items at % per cent, except farm
lands, which. he put at As per cent,
and structures at 35 per cent. An
other says that he returned household
y furniture at one-ffth; moneys and
~ credits and merchandise at one.
fourth; town lots at one-third, and
; improvements at one-tenth Of theil
oe true value. Yet another put in do.
YAK MN
> nestle animals at 40 per cent, house
hold furniture and farm implements
rat 20 per cent. and farm lands at &c
per cent. w find one saying that he
9 was instructed by the township Off
sU Gals and the ex-assessor that domest
liz animals should be assessed at 81
,ailper cent, household furniture at 81
per cent, farm implements at Is pei
lllcent. and farm lands and structures
that 20 per cent. One who gave domes
attic animals, farm. implements ant
structures at 80 1-3 per cent, sail
that ut is hard to give the true value
aYlof household furniture" Another as
sEsessor found it necessary to return
farm implements and farm la7tcs a
rs per cent, and structures and i'm
Sprovements at 50 per cent. Three
Assessors, whose assessing district
jle within d fow miles OF each other
made the following answers; Asses