96 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
levies instead of assessed values (as in Connecticut and Rhode Island) 
equalization for apportioning the State tax is, of course, unnecessary, 
MetTHops oF EQUALIZATION IN USB 
Equalization by a county board is, of course, attempted only in 
those States, other than in New England, which have assessment 
districts smaller than the county. In New England, where the 
county is of little importance, State boards make the equalization, 
which is only as between towns. In Ohio and North Carolina the 
county assessors themselves sometimes equalize the valuations as 
between the individual appraisers or assistants. In North Carolina, 
also, the county board may equalize between townships by making 
uniform increases or decreases in the valuation of all property in 
a township (43, pp. 70, 110-111). 
County equalization is in most cases the duty of a board composed 
of the same officers who are responsible for the original assessment. 
In view of the lack of factual data, the total values of each district 
as assessed are accepted for equalization purposes, or else arbitrary 
changes in the totals are made on the basis of fragmentary evidence. 
In Wisconsin the true value of each town in the county is approxi- 
mated by the supervisor of assessments, an agent of the State tax 
commission with jurisdiction over a group of counties. The super- 
visor of assessments obtains his estimate of the total value of each 
town by comparing the assessed value of properties sold with the 
actual considerations, by appraising samples of all classes of property, 
and by obtaining evidences of property values in every way possible. 
A total value for each town in the county is recommended by the 
supervisor of assessments to the county board of equalization, which 
board generally adopts the recommendations for the purpose of 
county equalization. This Wisconsin practice is a notable advance 
over the general practice of county equalization in the various States, 
in that it is based on systematic data collected by an agency of the 
State (58, Rept. 1932, pp. 20, 42). 
State equalization is generally taken more seriously than county 
equalization and is the product of considerable time, effort, and 
expense on the part of the State boards. Methods of State equaliza- 
tion used in Georgia, Michigan, Maine, New York, and Wisconsin 
are mentioned here as examples of the various methods used with 
minor modifications in all the States which attempt State equalization. 
In Georgia State equalization is accomplished by arbitration, much 
the same as the arbitration of individual assessments. When the 
State tax commissioner determines the valuation of a county, the 
county assessors have a right to, and do, demand arbitration. The 
county assessors and the State tax commissioner each name an arbi- 
trator, and these two arbitrators select a third. This board of arbitra- 
tion must, according to law, be made up of neither citizens nor property 
owners in the county whose valuation is to be determined. Within 
a time limit of 3 days these strangers must establish a county valua- 
tion which is to stand as final. (31, p. 101.) Thus the accumulation 
of factual data over a long period, upon which expert judgment in 
equalization might be based, is effectually discouraged. 
19 COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH OF THE GOVERNOR’S TAXATION COMMITTEE, OHIO REPORT ON PROPERTY 
TAXATION, pt. I, ch. III, p. 5. (Unpublished report.) 
