TAX ADMINISTRATION 
141 
equalization process. The term “equalization,” or “equali- 
zation process,” does not imply that there is necessarily any 
change in total valuations for the state. It implies, rather, 
an ironing out of differences, a bringing together of the 
respective valuations for the several counties on a common 
level, regardless of whether, as finally equalized, property 
throughout the entire state is valued uniformly at 100%, 
559%, or some other percentage. In order that further light 
may be thrown on this bringing together process and that 
the summary data which have been considered may not be 
misinterpreted, the changes made in the various classifica- 
tions are presented by counties in Table 45. The data in 
this table will not be subjected to a detailed analysis. It is 
sufficient to mention only a few of the outstanding features 
of the equalization process as disclosed by this table. 
The county data for lands, town lots, and mules are par- 
ticularly enlightening, in that the changes recommended by 
the State Tax Commission are frequently on a straight per- 
centage basis. When such is the case, the implication is that 
the particular form of property the valuation of which is 
increased or decreased by a flat percentage had been under- 
valued or overvalued, as compared with other property in 
the same county and property in general throughout the 
state. For example, the valuation of lands in Clinton County 
was increased 209, and the valuation of town lots, 1097. 
It would seem to follow that the assessor had used different 
standards in assessing the two classes of real estate. The 
Commission presumably acted on statistical evidence in such 
cases, yet the numerous flat percentage changes would seem 
to preclude any sound claim to scientific precision. It is 
difficult to understand how a careful analysis could result in 
the recommendation of so many flat increases and decreases, 
and it would seem that, although information is at hand 
when these changes are recommended, the recommended 
increases and decreases rest, in part at least, on a judgment 
basis. 
For St. Louis County the valuation of mules was increased 
509%, and the valuation of cattle, 30%. Compared with the 
number of counties in the state, the changes in the valuation 
of livestock were very few. There is nevertheless the im-