siderable left to the assessor in making his valuations. We do not show all our calculations in any line of business, but the main thing is to get the results correct. Now, then, the assessor, having this classification as read here, will be enabled to take care of these details and show that the totals are a certain amount. He has a certain satisfaction in knowing how he arrived at the general result, so that if brought to a court of revision, he will be able to give an intelligent answer as to how he arrived at the result. In that way I think this Committee, in formulating these rules, have produced a very good result. [The report was then accepted by unanimous vote.] SIXTH SESSION THURSDAY AFTERNOON, SEPTEMBER 1, 1910 CHAIRMAN, JUDGE N. S. GILSON, WISCONSIN PROGRAM DISCUSSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS CHIEF TOPICS 1. STATE SUPERVISION OF LOCAL ASSESSMENT. 2. EQUALIZATION. 3. TRUE CONSIDERATION IN DEEDS. 4. ASSESSMENT OF BANK STOCK. 5. INHERITANCE TAX. 6. GROUND LEASES OF RAILROAD PROPERTY. PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTRATION PRESIDENT ALLEN R. FOOTE (Ohio): It is understood by the announcement on the program that this session is to be conducted by the State Tax Commissioners present, under the chairmanship of Judge Gilson of Wisconsin. It is understood also that the proceedings of this session, as all the other sessions, will be published in the volume of proceedings. CHAIRMAN N. S. GILSON (Wisconsin): As stated by Mr. Foote the meeting this afternoon is turned over to not only the Tax Commission force of this Conference, but all tax officials, I understand, who have to do with the valuation or assessment of property. A committee was appointed in Louisville last year to arrange a meeting at which there would be opportunity for a discussion of the difficulties of administration, and this session of the Conference was set apart for that purpose. It was thought best not to have any set addresses, and therefore the program furnished me by the committee simply suggests some topics for discussion, and we will have to do the best we can to fill it out and give it life. It has been suggested that the subject of real estate assessment and the supervision of local assessments by central boards might be a good topic to consider this afternoon, perhaps the first subject that will demand our attention. We have invited Hon. Frank B. Jess, president of the New Jersey State Board of Equalization, to tell you the method of supervision of the taxation of real estate in New Jersey. STATE SUPERVISION OF LOCAL ASSESSMENT MR. FRANK B. JESS (New Jersey): I have thoroughly enjoyed every moment of the time that I have been here in Milwaukee, and I feel that I have greatly profited by listening to the papers that have been read and the discussion that has here taken place, although to be called upon thus suddenly and without preparation somewhat mars the pleasure of the occasion to me, but I will say a few words about the method of supervisory tax administration in New Jersey. We have a kind of a dual system there. In the first place, we have a State Board of Equalization which has practically arbitrary powers in the review of assessments and in the equalization of assessments as between taxing districts in the same county and as between the different counties of the State. This Board also hear individual appeals from property owners throughout the State. They have, however, nothing to do with the assessment or the review of the assessment of railroad property, provided that it be property that is used wholly for railroad purposes, like the main stem and the terminals. Where this property is exclusively used for railroad purposes, it is assessed by the State Board of Assessors, an entirely different organization. But it frequently happens that the railroads appear before the State Board of Equalization as appellants from assessments made by local assessors. In New Jersey, as I have said, the railway property is assessed by the State Board of Assessors, but sometimes there is a difference of opinion between the State Board of Assessors and the local assessors as to whether property, terminal property, for instance, is assessable locally or assessable by the state Board. Recently we had a case of this kind in Hoboken. The Lackawanna Railroad property was assessed by the local assessors, and the question came up before the State Board of Equalization on appeal, the contention of the railroad being that all this property, including the ferry property, was used for railroad purposes. Following a ruling of our Supreme Court, we found that only a small part of the property there could be held to have a major local use so as to be liable to assessment locally. Except in cases of that kind, where there is some dispute as to the character of the property assessed, the State Board of Equalization has nothing whatever to do with the assessment of railroad property. Then in addition to the state boards, we have county boards of taxation, these boards having been created by act of the |