to keep silent about the matter, which is ascribed to political jealousy.

"As a matter of fact the law is a farce and it should either be repealed or enforced. The former in the light of past experience would be the most sensible move to make. The law as it is now evaded, does an injustice to those who pay taxes. It amounts to adding two dollars more on every taxpayer who is not exempt under the statute. As a matter of fact the man whose name does not appear on the Assessor's books escapes entirely."

The recommendation of an Assessor, that a list of exemptions from poll tax should be made and kept on file at the office of the Town Clerk, is commended.

Farm property being assessed, as it is stated that it is, at a valuation, in many instances, far in excess of its selling value, shows a gross injustice, and should be remedied by legislation. Farms, as a rule, are listed from year to year at the same valuation, and as it is claimed, have in many localities greatly depreciated in value, by reason of the decrease in prices obtained for the product. And here it might be stated, that a pretense is made by some few Boards of Assessors to secure as a basis for assessment, the earning value or actual productivity of the landed estates assessed, the rental value also being considered, but rarely is it shown that increases in valuation of property has been made when by reason of largely increased population, or improvement in surrounding estates, such values had really and substantially grown.

Interference by Boards of Relief with assessments made is condemned by many Assessors, as will be seen, a member from one town averring that it would be as well to have no Assessors at all.

Reference to the table immediately following this chapter, and which relates to the percentage of the true valuation at which property in all the towns is assessed, comprehensively shows the injustice done many of the towns which conform to the provisions of law, and the advantage to others, which are assessed at a low per cent. of true value, in the event of a County or State tax being levied.

In the twenty-nine towns in Hartford County, the percentage ranges from fifty per cent. to one hundred, there being seven in which the maximum figure is the basis of assessment, and three the minimum, the average in the county being 69.8 per cent. There had been no County Tax levied on Grand List of 1895 at the

time of the completion of this report.

The necessity for one in

the near future, however, is plain, for the reason that an indebtedness exists to be provided for in no way other than by a tax levy.

In New Haven County, the maximum rate of one hundred per cent. assessment is made the rule in seven of the twenty-six towns, the minimum percentage of one-third valuation prevailing in one, Waterbury, and as a County Tax of two-tenths (.0002) mills was laid in that county, a case of injustice in this regard is made clear, for as the figures show, when comparison is made with Naugatuck, which is stated to have been assessed at full valuation, and whose Grand List was $7,331,459, a tax levy of two-tenths (.0002) mills on this amount would realize $1,466. 29, while Waterbury, whose Grand List based upon a one-third valuation was $12,322,908, and would realize for the County Treasury on a two-tenths (.0002) mill tax rate, $2,464.58, which amount would have been increased to $7,393.74 had the property in Waterbury been assessed at the same ratio as to true value, as was the case in Naugatuck.

Again, let it be supposed that all property in New Haven County had been assessed in accordance with law, at its full value, the Grand List in that case would have been $194,916, 399, when, as is the real case, it was but $118,462,571. A two-tenths (.0002) mills tax on the latter amount would raise $23,692.51 in revenue for the county, while if actual market value had been considered, and assessments had been made on the basis of that value, in order to raise a similar amount, a one hundred twentytwo one thousandths (.000122) mills tax only, would have been necessary. Therefore, as these figures clearly prove, Naugatuck, whose Grand List is 3.8 per cent. of the total for the county, based upon one hundred per cent. valuation, paid 6.2 per cent. of the County Tax, while Waterbury, whose portion of the Grand List of the county would have been 19.0 per cent., had the property in that town been assessed at the legal ratio of one hundred per cent., which prevailed in Naugatuck, paid but 10.4 per cent. of the total County Tax. That such inequalities exist is certainly peculiar, but nevertheless true.

The average per cent. of assessment in New London County is 74. 1, four of the twenty-one towns listing property at one hundred per cent. and nine assessing at two-thirds valuation, the minimum for the county. No County Tax was levied, the necessity for it not existing there.

A County Tax of two-tenths (.0002) mills was laid in Fairfield County, and as the larger towns made assessments at a higher proportion of value than the smaller, the injustice done them in the payment of this tax is plain. Eight of the twenty-three towns were assessed at full value, while the minimum of one third valuation was made the rule in one. Following the same method in this as in New Haven County, and the result is reached that a two-tenths (.0002) mills tax on the Grand List as actually assessed, a revenue of $22,735.19 would be raised, and if all the towns had assessed property in accordance with the law, a one hundred sixty-two one thousandths (.000162) mills tax only would have been necessary to have secured the same amount. Comparing Bridgeport with Trumbull, it is found that in the former town, property was assessed at its full value, and in the latter at one-third. Basing this comparison on the actual value of the property in the county, the figures show that Bridgeport, having 40.4 per cent. of the Grand List of the county, paid 50.01 per cent. of the tax, while Trumbull, with 1.29 per cent. of the Grand List at full value, paid but .53 per cent. of the tax. The average rate of assessment in this county was 80.8 per cent.

Six

The Grand List of Windham County, as assessed was $17,872,358, or an average of 58.6 per cent. of full valuation. of the fifteen towns assessing at the maximum figure. Killingly listing at forty per cent. of full value, and Windham at one-half valuation. For purposes of comparison the former town is taken with that of Woodstock, which assessed property at one hundred per cent. A one mill County Tax was laid, with the result that the revenue derived from the tax as levied on the Grand List of the county would have been $17.872.36, and if the property in the entire county had been assessed at full value, as required by law, a one mill tax would have raised $30,480.07. A tax of fifty-nine one hundredths (.00059) mills only being necessary to have raised the required amount. Basing the computation upon the assumption that all property had been assessed on an equality with that of Woodstock, it is found that that town, with 2.83 per cent. of the total in the county actually paid under the prevailing rule, as applied to Windham County, 4.83 per cent. of the tax, while Killingly, to which the same rule is applied, paid 12.21 per cent of the tax, the per cent. of the Grand List being 17.89, if assessed at full value.

Ten of the twenty-six towns in Litchfield County made assess

ments in compliance with existing law, at full valuation, the minimum of sixty per cent. being the rule in two. Comparison is made with Litchfield, which town was assessed at the higher, and Winchester, where the lower rate prevailed. In the latter town the Grand List as assessed was $2,688, 138, and the former was listed at $2,909, 177. Had the same rule been made to apply to both towns alike, the Grand List of Litchfield would have remained the same, while that of Winchester would have been increased to $4,480, 230, or an increase per cent. of 663 over the present valuation. There was no County Tax levied on the list of 1895, but a one mill tax was laid on the list of 1894. Assuming that the same condition prevailed in that year as exists in 1895, comparison made between Litchfield and Winchester shows that a one mill tax laid upon the list as assessed would have realized $28,534. 26, requiring but an eighty-one one-hundredth (.00081) mill tax on the Grand List, if based upon full valuation. Litchfield, with 8.26 per cent. of the total Grand List of the county, would have paid 10.20 per cent. of the tax, and proceeding upon the same theory, Winchester's portion, if properly assessed, would have been 12.72 per cent. of the Grand List and actually would have paid but 9.4 per cent. of the tax, as the property there was really assessed. The average per cent. in the county of true market value was 81 per cent.

Of the fifteen towns in Middlesex County, five assessed property at full valuation, two-thirds of full value being the case in one, Killingworth, which town is taken for comparison with Cromwell, where the assessment was made on a basis of one hundred per cent., the average in the county being 80.4 per cent. If property in Killingworth had been assessed at full value, the per cent. of the total Grand List of the county would have been 1.22, but being assessed as it was at two-thirds valuation, it actually paid but 1.01 per cent. of the County Tax, which was three-tenths (.0003) mills on the list of 1895. Cromwell, however, having assessed its property on the basis of full valuation, and on the supposition that all other towns had made their assessments on an equality with it, had 4.27 per cent. of the Grand List of the county, but actually paid 5.31 per cent. of the County Tax.

The average per cent. of assessment in Tolland County was 47.6, three of the thirteen towns conforming to the law and assessing property at full value, and two at the minimum per

cent. of valuation, that being one-third. A County Tax of onehalf (.0005) mills was laid on the list of 1895, which would have. raised $4,320.57, based on the present valuation. It must be remembered, however, that had property in the whole county been listed at full value, the sum of $9,070.56 would have been realized by the imposition of the same per cent. of tax, or in other words, in order to raise the same revenue only a two hundred thirty-eight one-thousandths (.000238) mills tax need to have been imposed. For purposes of comparison, Vernon, which was assessed at one-third valuation, is used with the assessment made in Hebron, which was assessed at one hundred per cent. Hebron, whose per cent. of the Grand List based upon full value in the whole county was 2.36, paid 4.96 per cent. of the County Tax, while Vernon, where property was really assessed at onethird value, but whose portion of the total for the purpose of this computation is based upon its full value, was 50.56 per cent. actually paid by reason of the inequality of the assessment of its property, as compared to that of other towns in the county, which were assessed at full value, but 35.38 per cent, of the County Tax.

The matter of the evasion and inequality of assessment of property for the purposes of taxation, received the attention of Governor Thomas M. Waller, in his message to the General Assembly of this State, at the January session of 1883, and while some of the recommendations therein have since been acted upon and changes made in the laws existing at that time, yet, in the main, the same conditions obtain at this time, and the same recommendations apply. That portion of the message relating to the subject of taxation is herewith given in full:

"Equal in importance to economy in expenditure is equality in taxation. The existing laws requiring taxpayers to report to Assessors a list of their property liable to taxation practically makes every taxpayer his own judge on a question often difficult to decide, and one in which his pecuniary interest tends to warp and embarrass his judgment. The records of our Probate Courts in the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, frequently disclose the fact that large amounts of property, owned by men of standing and character, have for years escaped taxation.

"I recommend the passage of a law requiring that the taxpayer, under adequate penalty, either in person or by list, shall report to the Assessors all the property owned by him, wherever it may be, and of whatever it may consist, and that the Assessors shall decide all questions of exemption subject to review by the Board of Relief.