FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 91 
questionnaire submitted by a committee of the Oregon Legislature, 
the county assessor of Clatsop County made a statement as follows: 
For instance, in 1920 the small communities voted a 40 percent blanket increase 
in valuation of the county so that the Port District could issue a million dollars 
more bonds. 
It is said that the assessed valuation as determined by the incor- 
porated village assessors in Michigan is higher than the valuation of 
the same property by the township assessor, for the reason that the 
village assessors wish to maintain the legal borrowing limits of their 
villages. 
Still another type of horizontal change is due to the mistaken idea of 
many assessors that their duties include the raising of revenue as well 
as the valuation of property. There is no question whatever but that 
the Rhode Island assessor who made the following statement was 
under a misapprehension as to his duties: ‘‘We had to increase our 
valuation last year in order to meet our Pea and are consequently 
in for a great deal of criticism.” (48,-p 
In speaking of cut-over forest land, tae Michigan Tax Commission 
itself has said: 
From our investigation of the matter, we are convinced that much of this land 
is overvalued for taxes, but the economic condition is such that we do not see 
how these lands can be lowered in value if local governments and schools are to be 
maintained in many of the communities (33, Rept. 15, p. 11). 
The principal reason given for the independent assessment in 165 
of the 268 California cities is the need for more revenue than can be 
obtained by applying the maximum tax rates legally allowable to the 
low county assessed valuat.ons. Some of these cities achieve their 
ends by making a flat percentage increase in the valuations given in 
the county assessment roll, but the majority of them make an entirely 
independent assessment for city tax purposes (12, p. 122). This 
superimposed assessment would be entirely unnecessary if the county 
assessment were made to equal the market value as provided by law. 
The foregoing illustrations show how assessment officials often have 
a misconception of their duties, losing sight of the fact that the tax 
levy and not the valuation is the factor provided by law to determine 
the total amount of tax which will be raised. 
Minimum AnD Maximum VALUES 
Minimum values are sometimes maintained on assessment rolls 
regardless of actual value, the usual motive being the desire to meet 
certain revenue requirements. In Nevada a minimum assessed value 
for any land in the State is declared by law to be $1.25 per acre.” 
A minimum assessed value is established by ruling of the tax com- 
missioner in Louisiana, Montana, and New Mexico (41, p. 72). 
These minimum assessments are especially applicable to grazing 
lands. In Cook County, Minn., the minimum assessment of any 
land was fixed by the assessors at $4.50 per acre in 1926. The 
Michigan State Tax Commission has from time to time recommended 
minimum per-acre values for large parts of the State, and these 
minima have persisted over many years in some townships, and in 
other townships the local assessors were quick to reestablish minima 
based on their individual judgments. An officer of this State has 
17 Nevada, Compiled Laws, 1929, sec. 6535. 
