THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1877.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2548, 7 March 1877, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1877.

When the Assessment Court as at present constituted sat for the first time in this district we made a few brief remarks on the appeals made by objectors against the rates at which they were assessed. These had chiefly to do with one point, viz., the apparent hardship that men who had bought land and improved it should be taxed for the land itself and also for the improvements they had effected. We say apparent hardship, for we took care to give ia brief the reasons pro and con as they appeared to us for such a regulation, inasmuch that the fact of a man's having improved his land wa3 itself an evidence that he was able to pay more in proportion than others. Putting this question then by for the present as one already determined by law, aud one which whether just or unjust is at any rate laid down plain enough to guide the judge aright, we come to other points even more unsatisfactory, from the fact that it is a matter of the greatest difficulty, even if not of absolute chance, to come to a fair determination regarding them. It is difficult to imagine a more unsatisfactory way of spending six hours and a-half, than that in which the period during which the Assessment Court sat yesterday was spent. It wag evidently unsatisfactory to the judge—in fact he on more than one occasion said so; it certainly was to the appellants, or, at least, to a good portion of them ; and it ought to have been and doubtless was to the valuers. The position of a judge under the Act is this—and we are speaking of judges, valuers, appellants, etc., in general, and not of individuals—that he has to decide between two parties, each of whom thinks itself right, with very little data by which to arrive at a conclusion. The general objection taken was of excessive, value. How can the majority of-judges decide such a question P The; valuers, of course, stick to their valuation; it is not likely that in answer to such a question as " Do you consider it; a fair valuation?" they would answer anything; else but yes ; neither is it likely that a man' who had taken the trouble to appeal on the above named ground would say |• he thought the valuation fair. The judge is not very often an expert in valuation of "property, sometimes he. jioes not know; even the situation of the property in dispute, and yet he is to decide between two men, each interested in the question—,the one for his reputation the other for his pocket—who entirely disagree with each other, and yet may be each speaking the truth according to their views of the matter. The appellants can say no more than that the value is excessive, or that an increased rate has been put on while the property has not been improved; while the valuers, unless they make some ridiculous statements, as was the case .yesterday!-can but say;that their statement is the right one, and endeavour to leave an impression on'the mind of the Judge that they being professional valuers ought. to know best. This is what is actually the case, but even this, though unsatisfactory enough,. is capable ;.of ■- affording increased dissatisfaction.- To apply what may be regarded as general to the case of yesterday, the valuers seemed to know little ov nothing, of the Eating Act; there appeared tjo be no set basis on which the valuation! had. been made, but it rather seemed as if the valuation list had been the result of guess work or made at haphazard. When called upon to defend the valuation they were assisted by the.Town Clerk, who persisted in making.references to the term "five years purchase," which had nothing to dp with the matter at issue, as the J.udge pointed out ;.and, as these seemed useless, took the liberty of expressing doubts as to whether a gentleman would sell certain property for a certain sum, though he had the moment before inopen Coiirtexpressed his willingness to do so. When we say that the valuers had no set basis of valuation, we mean they appeared to have no fixed scale by which-to gauge the value of property. They had, however, what answered as substitutes, one of which took the form of an idea which had seized them, that the property in Shortland had greatly improved in value. How they could hare imagined this is hard to see, for it is perfectly plain from facts adduced that so far from Shortland property having improved in valuer it has actually depre.ciated.. The evidence went to show that instead .of being ablo to sell; or let property at fair prices, owners found difficulty at selling at-a loss, or letting houses at "even a nominal rental, neither of which facts—and numbers of instances could be adduced, and were adduced yesterday to prove that these were facts—teud to show that Shortland property has increased in value. This was one of the eccentric assertions of the valuers, but their eccentricity was not shown in this way alone. They excused themselves on this ground from the general charge of valuing Shortland property" too high, but they had other "excuses to meet other cases. Some of these are so absurd as to be worth recording. <. One man objected to his rate as being much higher than that charged to a neighbor with similar property. The valuers admitted that such was the case, but stated that his (the man's) valuation was a fair one, while that tho neighbor's,l- who was a widow, was too low, but they were obliged to make it too low as she could not pay it

if it were made higher. A nine reasou indeed for valuers to make ! Surely these men are not judges and valuers as well. Their duly was to makn a fair and proper valuation, and le:ivo it to the Council to . remit • the whole, or part of the rate if they saw proper cause to do so, and in acting.in the way they have acted they put it in everyone's power to say that they. were overstepping the duties they were elected to fulfil. An-| other case was,that in which they said to j one objector they made his rates as low j as possible because they knew he would i appeal. It is quite obvious that they [ ought to have made a fair valuation, not; one as low as possible or as high as possible, but simply a just one, and let the person assessed appeal or not. Instead of doing this they seem in the first of the two instances to have acted through fear, in the other, through favour. They said also they had taken particular pains in the case of the persistent objector. Ought not particular pains to be taken with the valuation of all properties to whomsoever they belong ?■ The result of these excuses was naturally great dissatisfaction, a dissatisfaction which was easily accounted.. for. The valuers necessarily wished to sustain their valuation, and of course tried all in their power to do so. The end was perfectly justifiable, though we can't say as much for the means employed. The Town* Clerk , was anxious to keiep the assessment as high as possible, so the former asserted ! to " the best of their knowledge and belief," and the latter affirmed, and confirmed by reference to his extensive private practice as agent and general factotum. Between them and the conflicting statsments made by appellants, the only course left open to the judge was to fall back, in some instances, on his private knowledge of the properties, and fix the value on.jit; or when this knowledge was wanting to split the difference between the appellant's estimate and the valuers' rating. We feel sure that some of those who were successful in obtaining reductions would not take the same trouble again to save what was very often a few shillings, and to secure which they had to sacrifice much time, did they not feel bound, by principle to protest against a condition of things which 13 growing more_ mischievous year by year, and was never more conspicuously displayed than in the admission of the valuers and the Town Clerk, that the valuation had been made in accordance with the statements • we. have made above.