assessors are paid, except in a few towns affected by special legislation, on a per diem basis, the rate for each assessor being limited to from three to five dollars a day. . . . No provision, except in certain towns in Nassau and Erie counties, is made for the employment of clerks. The compensation paid to each town assessor for his services in the assessment of general property for taxation ranges from less than $100 to about $1,000 per year. Supervisors, in some cases, realizing that the per diems are paid only too often for relatively illegible and incomplete copies of preceding rolls, and for perfunctory viewing of property by assessors, have exercised pressure in order to reduce the number of per diems allowed to a minimum. In some cases they allow the employment of a clerk capable of making a clearer transcript of the old roll. Such an expenditure is at present illegal except in a few towns. In another case, a supervisor hired a Ford for the use of the assessors in making their rounds. By the expenditure of $30 in this manner, he saved the town some $80 in assessors' per diems. This expenditure was disallowed, so the supervisor stated, by the bureau of municipal accounts in the State Comptroller's office on the ground that it was not authorized by law; and the supervisor reimbursed the town funds to cover the expenditure from his own pocket.

The costs of assessing general property, even with these rigid statutory restrictions on per diems and other expenses, bulk rather large in the expenditures of town governments. . .

In spite of the better assessing done in the cities. . . . the per capita costs of assessing and the costs of assessing per $1,000 of assessed values are higher in the towns. Furthermore,

the expenditures for assessments in the towns represent a greater percentage of total expenditures for local purposes than in the case of the cities. Small as the per diems and annual payments to town assessors are, and rigidly as expenses for clerical hire, etc., are held to a minimum the towns in the six counties studied are spending for assessments about 3.49 per cent of their total levies for town purposes. The cities lying in these counties on the other hand, are spending for assessments only .74 per cent of the total taxes levied for local purposes.

There are three general plans for equalization of assessments between towns:

1.-Equalization by the board of supervisors under authority granted by Sec. 50 of the Tax Law. Under this plan the duty is generally delegated to a committee of the board, who prepare a report for submission to the board as a whole.

2.-Equalization by a board of three equalization commissioners appointed by the board of supervisors under authority of Sec. 51 of the Tax Law. Two of the commissioners shall be residents of the county, but not members of the board of supervisors; the third shall be neither a resident nor a taxpayer of the county, but must reside in the judicial district in which the county is located. All appointments shall be confirmed by a two-thirds vote of all the supervisors.

3.-Equalization by a board of commissioners appointed by a majority vote of the justices of the supreme court residing in the county, under authority granted in each case by special act.

Among the counties specially studied, Albany, Franklin, Jefferson, Steuben and Sullivan operate under the first plan; and Erie under the third. . . . Unfortunately, no counties operating under the second plan were included among the counties visited.

As an index to the relative value of equalizations in the counties studied, the rates fixed by the equalizing authorities in the several counties have been compared with the corresponding rates established by the State Tax Commission for the equalization of special franchise assessments. The latter rates have been selected for use as a standard, not with any idea that they were infallible. Unfortunately the Commission's field staff is too limited in numbers to enable it to cover the entire State annually with the thoroughness requisite for the best results. . . . but no question of honesty of purpose or method was anywhere raised. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Commission's ratios consti

tute the best available standard for the judgment of the local rates.

The method now used by engineers, scientists and statisticians for comparing two sets of related facts, such as we have here, is known as correlation. One set of facts is taken as the standard or criterion, as it is called, and the other set of facts is compared, or correlated, with it. The measure of comparison is called the coefficient of correlation. The whole number 1.000 has been taken arbitrarily by mathematicians as the measure of perfect correlation, and 0.000 as the indication of no correlation.

In the comparison we are making here, town equalization rates as determined by the State Tax Department are taken as the standard or criterion, and the rates for the same town are correlated with the State rates. The comparison is made separately for each of six counties. If in any county the local rates were the same as the State rates or varied in the same way, the coefficient of correlation would be 1.000 exactly, but if there was little or no relationship, the coefficient would be down around

Comparison of County with State Equalization Rates in Selected Counties

52. Forms of Judicial Documents

The following pages illustrate the general form and content of some of the more common documents used by the courts. Each state has its own forms of these documents, but there is no great amount of variation among them. The forms given below may be said to be typical, although to secure the exact wording in any particular state it is necessary to consult a "form book."1

18. D. Puterbaugh, Common Law Pleading and Practice (9th ed., Chicago, 1917); S. D. Puterbaugh, Chancery Pleading and Practice (6th ed., Chicago, 1916); J. Lewson, Annotated Forms of Pleading and Practice (Chicago, 1914), 3 vols.; J. B. Winslow, Forms of Pleading and Practice under the Code (Chicago, 1915), 3 vols.

A civil suit is officially begun by filing a complaint against the person to be sued. This complaint is deposited with the clerk of the court, who then notifies the person who is sued by having the sheriff serve a summons on him. This document orders him to appear in court to answer the complaint. Failure so to appear and answer to the summons automatically gives the complainant judgment by default. In such an event, the property of the person sued may be sold to pay the amount of the judgment and the costs of the suit.

When trying a case the court endeavors to arrive at the truth, and one of the chief ways in which this is done is by hearing the testimony of witnesses. Both parties to the suit may ask the judge to order such witnesses to appear as they, respectively, desire; and this request is complied with by having the sheriff serve a subpœna on any person whose testimony is sought.

Complaint is sometimes made to the court that a person has been unlawfully arrested and is being wrongly held in prison. When such a complaint is made the judge issues a writ of habeas corpus compelling the jailor or sheriff to produce the person in court and to show why he is held in custody. When the prisoner is brought into court, the judge determines whether he is held legally. If it appears that he is not, the man is set free. Failure to obey a subpœna or a writ of habeas corpus renders one liable to contempt of court and subject to fine or imprisonment.

Before a prisoner can be placed on trial, it is necessary that a formal charge or accusation be presented to him. This is usually done by means of an indictment or true bill. This document is drawn up by a grand jury, after its members have heard the evidence against the man and have convinced themselves that there is reasonable ground for holding him for trial.

SOURCE-Documents furnished through the courtesy of L. Dow Nichols, Esq.

A. SUMMONS

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

}

COUNTY OF COOK

The People of the State of SS. Illinois, To the Sheriff of said County, GREETING:

WE COMMAND YOU THAT YOU SUMMON Frank W. Steinmetz if he shall be found in your County, personally to be and appear before the Circuit Court of Cook County, on the first day of the term thereof, to be holden at the Court House in the City of Chicago, in said Cook County, on the third Monday of March, A. D. 1925, to answer unto The National Fire Brick Co., a corporation, in a plea of Trespass on the case upon promises to the damage of said plaintiff, as it is said, in the sum of One thousand five hundred Dollars.

[SEAL]

And have you then and there this writ with an endorsement thereon in what manner you shall have executed the same.

WITNESS: THOMAS O. WALLACE, Clerk of our said Court, and the Seal thereof, at Chicago, in said County, this Twenty-seventh day of February, A. D. 1925.

WE COMMAND THAT YOU SUMMON Samuel A. Brown if he shall be found in your County, personally to be and appear before the Circuit Court of Cook County, on the eighth day of April, A. D. 1925, at 10:00 o'clock A. M., before the Hon. John A. Swanson, Room 824 at the Court House, in the City of Chicago, in said County, to testify and the truth to speak in a certain case now pending and undetermined in said Court, wherein The National Fire Brick Co., a corporation, is Plaintiff, and Frank W. Steinmetz, Defendant, on the part of the said defendant, and this he shall in no wise omit under the penalty of the law; and have you then and there this Writ.

[SEAL]

WITNESS, THOMAS O. WALLACE, Clerk of our said Court, and the Seal thereof at Chicago, this seventh day of April, A. D. 1925.