privilege; and as the bill finally passed, all the counties at that time seeking exemption were allowed it, while in respect to those which either did not express an opinion on the subject, or did not favour exemption, the taxation remained as before; and thus the present general rule of administration in Pennsylvania, in place of being the result of a general law, became the exception on the statute-book.

Again, there would seem to be no more fundamental principle in the adjustment and assessment of taxes in respect to one and the same State or community, than that the law or tax, whatever it may be, shall be uniform in its application to all; a principle confirmed in the first article of the eighth section of the Constitution of the United States; the one conferring power on Congress to "lay and collect" taxes, which expressly provides "that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." In short, except where arbitrary powers have been exercised by despotic or half-civilised rulers, it would be difficult to find exceptions to this rule in the history of other countries; and yet, in our own country, we have more than one illustration and evidence to the contrary. In the case derived from the laws of Pennsylvania, just referred to, the occurrence was evidently the result of accident and circumstance rather than of design; but in the case of New Jersey, which, within the last two years, has not only singled out certain counties, but even particularised certain cities and towns for exemption from a taxation made applicable to all the rest of the State, the design of the resulting inequality is not only apparent but admitted.

Again, an inconsistency in relation to assessments for taxation exists in the laws of New York, for which it would be difficult to find a counterpart in the legislation of any other State or country. Thus, while the general law of the State requires that personal property, in the nature of mortgages, debts, money at interest, choses in action, etc., shall be held to follow personal residence, a specific law* enacted with a view of reaching certain foreign proprietors, provides for exactly the reverse practice in respect to notes and mortgages executed within the State and held by foreigners.

An act of the Legislature of Illinois, passed April 16, 1869, is also especially worthy of notice in any review of the anomalies and inconsistencies of American taxation. This act provided

"All debts owing by inhabitants of this State to persons not residing within the United States for the purchase of any real estate, shall be deemed personal property, within the town or county where the debtor resides, and as such shall be liable to taxation in the same manner and to the same extent as the personal estate of citizens of this State."-Laws 1851, ch. 371.

that whenever any county, incorporated city or town, shall have created a debt to aid in the construction of any railway, it shall be the duty of the State Treasurer to place to the credit of such county, town, etc., all the State taxes received from such county, township, etc., derived from the increased valuation of property over and above the valuation for the year 1868, and apply the same to the payment of the bonded railroad debt of such county, township, etc. Thus, for example, if the valuation of property in a given county or town, in 1868, was $1,000,000, and in the year 1870 $1,500,000, then the law prescribes that all State taxes collected upon the additional $500,000 shall be returned to the locality to pay its railroad indebtedness. On the other hand, those localities which are not so fortunate as to have railroad debts will meanwhile continue to pay, in common with the rest of the State, on their increased valuations; but the payments thus made will be used to defray the general expenses of the State government, and not for the exclusive benefit of those on whom the tax is levied ; an arrangement which, in fact, makes prudence and economy or a deprivation of railroad accommodations an occasion for disproportionate taxation, and offers a bounty for the incurring of indebtedness.

IRREGULARITIES IN METHODS OF VALUATION.

Coming next to the consideration of the rules adopted for the valuation of property, both real and personal, for taxation, the irregularities generally-Massachusetts and the city of Philadelphia possibly excepted-will be found to be so great and so extreme that the word chaotic is the only term that can properly be used to characterise the systems or the practice.

As has already been stated, the valuation of the property of the State of New York for taxation increased, from 1860 to 1869 inclusive, from $1,419,297,520 to $1,860,120,770, or at the rate in ten years of about thirty-one per cent. In Massachusetts, the valuation increased during the same period fortyeight per cent; in Connecticut, 30.5 per cent; in Rhode Island, from 1861 to 1868, 54.9; while in New Jersey the valuation increased thirteen per cent in the three years from 1866 to 1869, inclusive. It is thus evident in the outset that unless we suppose New York to have increased in wealth and population at a less rapid ratio than the States which are contiguous to her, an assumption which cannot be admitted, the existing valuation of the State is comparatively incorrect and erroneous.

VALUATION OF REAL ESTATE.

In New York the State tax is apportioned among the counties on the basis of their respective valuations of real estate,

and the same rule prevails among the towns of the different counties. Hence arises the double competition between the assessors of counties in the aggregate, and of the towns in each county, for the lowest possible valuation. Having completed his official labours, each assessor in the State subscribes an oath, of which the following is the material portion :

"We do severally depose and swear that we have set down in the foregoing assessment-roll all the real estate inaccording to our best information, * * * and that we have estimated the value of said real estate at the sums which a majority of the assessors have decided to be the full and true value thereof, and at which they would appraise the same in payment of a just debt due from a solvent debtor."

And the law further provides "that every assessor who shall wilfully swear false in taking and subscribing said oath, shall be guilty of and liable to the penalties of wilful and corrupt perjury.' Let us now see what are the acknowledged facts in respect to the valuation of real property in New York, and some of the other States, where a substantially like oath is made imperative.

In some instances in New York the valuation of real estate for taxation is reported as low as twenty per cent of its real value. In a majority of cases in the country the rate varies from twenty-five to thirty-five per cent, and rises in the cities to fifty and possibly sixty per cent as a maximum. In short, there cannot probably be found a single instance in the whole State, unless possibly in the case of certain unoccupied lands, the property of non-residents, where the law as respects the valuation of real property is fully complied with, and where the oaths of the assessors are not wholly inconsistent with the exact truth.*

Of numerous examples of irregularity or inadequacy of assess

"I hold that under our present system there is no greater manufactory of perjury on the face of the earth. What is the habit throughout the entire length and breadth of the State of New York? Towns are fighting towns, through their assessors, to get at the lowest possible point the assessment of their real and personal property, for the purpose of going up to the board of supervisors, and in the taxation of the county charges, to have their particular towns as low as possible in the roll of taxation. That engenders a necessity on the part of counties to act in the same way; and you find the counties cutting down their assessment rolls in the equalisation of valuation of their property as low as possible, so that when they come up here to Albany and appear before the State equalisation board, to divide the State taxation, they shall pay the least amount of tax they possibly can. is no attempt on the part of the assessors and supervisors to get at the honest, actual value of the property of the country, but there is an attempt to get it at as low a point as possible, in order to get an advantage over neighbouring towns and counties in the operation of dividing the taxes of the county and state."-Speech of Hon. Thomas G. Alvord, Debates New York Constitutional Convention, 1867-68; vol. iii., p. 1905.

There

ment brought to the attention of the commissioners, the following may serve as illustrations :

In 1842 the real estate of Oneida county was assessed at $9,935,209; and in 1869 at $14,581,949, showing an increase in value in twenty-seven years of only $4,656,740. In 1865, the value of live stock in Oneida county, as returned in the census of the State, was $4,254,587.50, and the value of the farms $26,944,185, making a total value of farms and live stock of $31,193,772; and in 1865 there was in Oneida county $3,542,925 capital invested in cotton, woollen, paper, grist and flouring and lumber mills, and in tanneries and iron-furnaces.

Oneida county has 735,453 acres of land, the average assessed value of which is only about twenty dollars per acre, and this valuation includes the real estate of the cities of Utica, Rome, etc. The value of the dwellings alone in Oneida county, in 1865, according to the census of New York, was $14,589,715, being more than the assessed value of all the real estate of the county in 1869.

Westchester county has 278,827 acres of land, the assessed valuation of which, with buildings, etc., in 1869, was $45,602,201, or at the rate of $163 per acre. The opinion of an expert in such matters, however, is, that any valuation of the real estate of this county less than $150,000,000 would be low; the county, as is well known, being bounded in part by the waters. of the Hudson and the Sound, and traversed by the Hudson River, Harlem and New Haven railroads, and containing many towns and villages in which real estate commands several thousands of dollars per acre; or even by the lot. According to the census of 1865, the value of the dwellings alone in Westchester county was returned at $36,755,440, and the value of the farms at $37,587,333.

In 1858, the valuation of the real estate or Dutchess county, one of the richest agricultural counties of the State, was $21,169,721, and in 1869, $20,927,018, thus showing a decrease in eleven years of $242,703. Dutchess county has 486,837 acres of land, assessed for taxes within a fraction of forty-three dollars an acre, and this includes Poughkeepsie, Fishkill, Rhinebeck, &c., where real estate is sold for thousands of dollars per The census cash value of the farms in this county, in 1865, was $30,342,547; the cash value of the dwellings $13,845,635, making a total of $44,188,182.

acre.

In Erie county the valuation of real estate in 1852 was $31,964,856; and in 1859, $43,249,639; showing an increase in six years of $11,284,783. In 1870 the valuation of real estate is returned at $43,392,351; showing an increase in twelve years of only $142,712. According to the State

census of 1865, the value of farms in Erie county was $25,314,744, and number of acres or improved land in the county 407,802. Value of the dwellings in the towns, $5,695,386; value of the dwellings in the city of Buffalo, $28,918,891. The value of the dwellings in the city of Buffalo, in the census return of 1865, was only $1,985,244 less than the assessed value of all the real estate of the city in 1870. In Monroe county, one of the richest and most populous counties of the State, the valuation of the real estate in 1858 was $24,367,165; and in 1869, $23,066,624; thus showing a decrease in eleven years of $1,300,541. The value of the farms of this county, by the census of 1865, was returned at $20,415,992, or at an average of about $77 per acre. The value of the buildings of the county, outside of the city of Rochester, was returned in 1865 at $6,830,967, and of the city itself at $15,861,760; making a total of $22,692,727, or only $368,897 less than the entire value of the real estate of the county, including the city of Rochester.

Similar illustrations might be obtained from the valuation and census statistics of many of the other counties of the State; but the above are believed to be sufficient to show the nature of the valuations of real estate which at present characterise the existing tax system of the State of New York.*

*The following extracts from statements made by delegates from various parts of the State to the constitutional convention of 1867-'68, when the subjects of valuation and assessments were under consideration, will also serve as further illustrations of the imperfections and inequalities of the existing system :

"The gentleman has said that the present law is abundantly sufficient. I ask him to point me to a single board of assessment anywhere in this State who begin to live anywhere near to the requirement of law. They cannot do it. It is an impossibility for them to do it. They can only estimate the value of the property arbitrarily, putting it as high as they please, and then leave it to individuals themselves to come forward and modify it; but rather than subject themselves to that mode of correcting these assessments, they go through the State, putting property down to the lowest possible point that their consciences will permit (in order that they may not be worried by the importunities of parties to reduce taxation)). which they are generally obliged to do upon the representations of the parties, since their own estimate is but an arbitrary guess."-T. G. Alvord, 22nd District, Debates Constitutional Convention, vol. iii., p. 2311. "I am well aware that our system of taxation is a gigantic fraud in the great commercial city of New York, and that many of our largest propertyholders know that every year, in the strict eye of the law, they are actually in complicity with fraud on the part of assessors and collectors in that city."-A. J. H. Duganne, New York city, Delegate at Large, Ibid., vol. iii., p. 2314. "In 1859 there was a law passed by the Legislature of this State, which authorised any town in any county which conceived itself to be aggrieved by the equalisation of their board of supervisors, to carry their case to the Comptroller. Under that law but one case has arisen in this State, and that arose this year, in the county of Jefferson. The town conceived itself to be aggrieved by the equalisation; and the Comptroller referred the matter to an individual residing in that county. He did the