The times-herald. [volume] (Burns, Harney County, Or.) 1896-1929, 1914-10-24
In Reply to MIR. Hushet.

MADE In ROou luitn anu ior titc
sole purpose of trying to get fair
and equitable assessment.
AS for myself. was willing
and asked that sheep be raised
and l am q sheep raiser. Sheep
are herded together and are al
ways in a position to be easily
counted and are given in full, or
neatly so, to the assessor. Cattle
are generally given in at less
than half of the number on hand
or owned. Sheep at the present
time are worth about $500 per
head on the average and are as
sessed at $3.50. Cattle are now
worth on an average about 500. 90
per head and are assessed at $50.
90. Sheep men give in their num-
ber in full, and are assessed at ga
per cent Of their value. Cattle
are given in at 80 per cent or less
in number and then assessed at
only 35 percent of their value.
A sheep man. therefore, pays on
62 percent of the value of his pro-
perty; the cattle man on only 17A
per cent of the value Of his. Is
this fair? Who owns the cattle?
Five or six persons own nearly rs
percent of thecattle in this Coun-
ty. Now. who is benefited by
the low rate on cattle? II Mr..
Hughet has clean hands. why did
he not take this into consideration
at that time? In whose interest
does he seem to be working the
millionaire cattle man or the av-
erage taxpayer?
AS for my land. the assessor
has every acre assessed which |
own, and as to the value per acre.
he arbitrarily fixed the price with
out consulting me. ] made no
protest as to the land for the rea-
son that | knew another party
was making objection to that. and
/ upheld his objection.
The reason ! did that was that
he had full facts on which TO base |
his objection to the valuation Of
land, and | did not have those
facts.
This protest on land was also
disallowed and the Board refused
to correct the equalizations Of the
assessment upon the land.
was .nev asked las stated
by Mr.. Hughet) my opinion on
The valuation on land. and did
not give it. The question was
asked by some Of the Board.
What about land?" and | said.
Others will attend to that who
Snow more about it."
Now, their only contention and
'eason for not allowing this pro-
est, according to Mr.. Hughet's
statement, was that they had
pade greater Irregularities in the l
Issesments Of land and therefore
lad the right to make these ir-
egularities in regard to cattle
md sheep. In fact, their claim
s that they have made the as
essment such that the big tax
'ayer gets a great deal the best
4 It on land, therefore they have
he same right to give him a
,reat deal the best OF It on per-
onal property; but do you think
hat because a wrong assessment
made upon one class Of property
hat that is a justification for a
,rong assessment upon another
lass?
will be glad to have my lands H
ssessed at their actual value II n
ney will assess the other land on
ne same basis. and that is the N
My fair way in which 10 make
ne assessment. The present as
sssement does not favor. either m
pom land or personal property. NJ
ne small taxpayer but does favor N
ne large taxpayer in every in N
.ance. N
If the Board Of Equalization
as just and fair, there would be Nj
D cause for protest. but II has
zen getting worse from time to M
me until i. is now almost un- IA
sarable.
! therefore submit this to you,
le voters Of Harney County,