Evening star., 1932-02-01

been accused of being underassessed
and lightly taxed.
The specific charge which confronted
Washington Just prior to the 1915 in
quiry was that District realty, measured
by the standards applied in other cities
was worth $744, 900, 900 in 1912, though
assessed for only $330,000,000.
The basis of this charge resulted from
miScalculation based on a mathe-
matical error Of omission that required
months and months to overcome. ~ Is
discussed here at some length as sig
nificant Of the genesis Of many charges
hurled at Washington for alleged under
assessment or alleged tax lodging.
Answering this contention, the Citi-
zens' Joint Committee on Fiscal Rela-
ions made an exhaustive presentation Of
comparative assessment and tax data
which not only refuted the claim of un-
derasSeSSment but showed that, con-
Sidering the limited taxable area of the
District, the local community was bear
ing a heavier tax burden than most
other American cities.
In his final argument at the 1915
hearings Theodore w Noyes on behalf
of the Citizens Joint Committee, said
we first endeavored 10 prove that
the $744,000,000 valuation of Washing
ton in 1912, upon which this assault is
based was the erroneous conclusion
from insufficient or false premises of a
single witness, and was grossly and
groteSquely excessive. The faithful val
uatiOn Of Washington in 1915 at $685.
100000 under civilian commissioners
and by assistant assessors in full SYM
pathy with the doctrines of Henry
George emphasized the gross excessive
ness of the $744,000,00 valuation in
1912"
Basis Of Attack Contested.
Mr.. NoyeS analyZed the procedure by
which Herbert J. Browne had arrived
at the conclusions regarding District
realty values which found expression u
the report of the George subcommittee
in 1912, and which formed the basis OF
subsequent attacks on District taxation
in House debates. In this connection
Mr.. NoyeS in his 1915 argument con-
tinued:
mo ether witness than Mr.. Browne
teStitieS to a S744,000 900 valuation of
the whole city or to a sectional Valua-
tion reached by multiplying the assess
ment of every lot in 1t by an arbitrary
number, sS five or three and one-third.
to learn its true value. Other witnesses
testified as to values Of particular lots
Mr.. Browne generalized incorrectly
from their specific evidence.
1T makes little difference as a gen.
eral proposition whether Mr.. Browne is
right or wrong in his allegation OF
specific cases Of underaSSesSment In
1912, but when he uses such cases as
the basis OF generalizations concerning
the value of entire sections and Of the
whole city his foundation cases must
be not only absolutely accurate but
typical. Mr.. Brownies selected cases
have turned out to be neither typical
nor generally accurate
Every Corroborative witness to the
fairness Of the $744 900, 900 valuation to
whom Mr. Browne appeals fails him
He mace Mr.. George, using Mr.
Brownies words as a witness, say in his
report:
80 The total taxable realty values Of
the District OF Columbia fixed by your
committee at S744 900 900, fall well with
in the sum indicated by forthcoming
census bulletin, which places the entire
realty values of the District at 81 2OO.
600 900. Deduct from this S40O 900 OOC
for Federal and municipal real prop
erty and allow 25G00.00 for churches
legations, schools. hospitals and ether
exemptions. and the remainder. S775
900 000, is still $3lO0O,OO0 above the
conservative estimate Of your COM
mittee.