206 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



much evidence all tending the same way makes incontestible the claim of 

 the land holder that he is bearing the taxes intended for all. 

 Another objection to our taxing system is that 



IT EXCOURAGES UNEQUAL VALUATION, 



as between one locality and another. The entire amount of State and 

 county taxes is levied upon the townships of this State in proportion to 

 the value of property each contains. Xo greater inducement could be 

 offered the assessing officer having the interests of his neighborhood 

 rather than the interests of the State at heart, to undervalue property 

 and shift the burden of State and county taxes to other townships than 

 his. Real estate in almost adjacent counties, like Allegan and Berrien, 

 differs in assessed value as much as eight dollars per acre, while the 

 same differences are permitted between townships within a county. The 

 law, it is true, seeks to remedy this defect by requiring that all property 

 be assessed at its real value, but assessors do not comply with the law. 

 The Auditor General's tax superintendent in this State estimates that 

 one-half the property of the State goes untaxed because the personal prop- 

 erty escapes taxation and the other property is undervalued. A supervisor 

 in Ionia county recently published this statement concerning an equali- 

 zation quarrel in that county: ''My claim was and is that Ionia City, 

 Portland, Saranac, and all the other villages, together with the farming 

 lands of the county, were assessed at full eighty per cent of what they 

 would sell for (the law says we should assess for full cash value, but we 

 have a chance to err in our judgment), and that Belding City was not 

 assessed on any property over forty per cent, and in some cases not over 

 ten per cent, of its cash value.*' This statement shows the diifereuces 

 that may exist in valuing property, also the method by which assessors 

 accomplish the result. The law in this State further encourages the 

 undervaluation of property by making the assessing officer elective rather 

 than appointive. His stay in office and further political promotion is 

 directly dependent on the ballots of those whose property he values. He 

 encounters a strong temptation through the law to value property 

 lightlv, and keep his constituents good humored at the expense of the 

 State." 



UNDERVALUATION. 



Judge Maxwell, of Bay City, before whom a supervisor was recently 

 convicted of undervaluing property, makes this statement: "Since 184:], 

 the supervisor has been tried as an assessing officer, and for fifty years it 

 has been demonstrated that the supervisor will not make an honest 

 assessment. The system of equalization by the board of supervisors 

 holds out constant temptation to him to violate his oath and pervert his 

 duty by valuing the taxable property too low. In fact, as a man, he 

 hopes that by low valuation he will save something to his constituents, 

 and he favors those who elected him. On this favoritism of his imme- 

 diate neighbors depends his further political hopes." Little betterment 

 of tax conditions can be hoped for while assessors are responsible to the 

 tax payers for their positions, or the State leaves so much chance for one 

 township to shift county and State taxes upon another. 



