82 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
takers, who are thus responsible to both the county assessor and the 
commissioners. The county assessor seldom views property and is 
seldom called upon to exercise his judgment. His chief function is to 
compile the returns sent in by the list takers for presentation to the 
county commissioners. 
In all but four of the remaining States the assessor, or assessors, 
are elected by the voters of their districts. In Kansas the township 
assessors are appointed by and work under the responsible direction 
of the county commissioners and the county assessing officer; in 
Delaware and Maryland the county assessors are appointed by ‘the 
county levy court or county commissioners; while in South Carolina 
the county assessors are appointed by the ‘governor. 
The assessor’s term of office is generally from 2 to 4 years, although 
in four States (Maine, Michigan, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) the 
assessor is elected for only 1 year (41, p. 74). 
The rural assessor usually receives little better than laborer’s 
wages. The following examples are taken at random: (1) The three 
selectmen in Loudon, N. H., were paid an average of $115 apiece in 
1927 for their combined services as selectmen and as assessors; (2) 
the assessor of Grays Harbor County, Wash., a rather populous and 
wealthy county with both rural and urban property, was paid a salary 
of $2,196 in 1927; (83) Minnesota provides by law that a township 
assessor shall receive $4 for each day employed in assessing; and (4) 
Georgia establishes a fixed wage of $3 for each day the ‘‘receiver of 
taxes’ is occupied with his assessment duties. In Washington it was 
found that the county assessor of one of the counties was also the 
county treasurer, and he received only $1,500 per year for performing 
the duties of both offices. As the county commissioners would not 
reimburse him for his traveling expenses, this county assessor was 
necessarily a sedentary official and readily admitted never having 
been in the western part of his county. 
Frequently a piece-rate system of compensation is employed. In 
Arkansas the assessor receives 20 cents for each name listed on his 
roll, while in Missouri and West Virginia the assessor is paid on a 
sliding scale—the more names listed the less the rate per name. 
A variant of the piece-rate system of compensation is employed in 
still other States; i. e., the greater the assessed value, or the greater 
the taxes levied, the ereater the compensation. In Texas, for in- 
stance, the assessor is paid a commission of 5 cents on each $100 of 
the first $2,000,000 valuation, 2.25 cents on each $100 additional up 
to $5,000,000 valuation, and 1.7 cents on each $100 of the balance. 
In addition, he receives 5 cents for each poll listed. In Alabama, on 
the other hand, the commission is based on taxes levied (26, pp. 343- 
845). 
The law fixes no special qualifications for the assessor, except that 
he must be a voter residing in the assessment district. There are 
assessors of all degrees of competency. ‘The wide variations found 
in the character and the quality of the assessors themselves furnish 
in large part the cause of inequality in assessment methods and 
results. In general, neither knowledge of valuation methods nor 
sometimes even rough and ready familiarity with local values is re- 
quired as a qualification for the office of assessor. A community 
does not demand or expect high standards of its assessor. 
