Ed. Courier:- My attention is called to the charge, made by the supervisor of the 1-t and 2d wards, Ann Arbor city, in your issue of the 4th inst., to the effect that the country supervisors saddle an un cqual bbare of the state and county taies on the cities, "especially Ann Arbor ci'y," and then follows an array of figures, in tabular form, well caiculated by its ponderosity to strike with dismay the average newspaper reader (even the Argus editor is truck). It is not true that the county supervisors have so acted toward the cities, and the tabular form, rightly understood, shows nothing of the kind. It is undoubtedly true that in equalizing during the past 20 or 30 years, Ann Arbor oity, sometime may have been rated too high. Hat it is' equally true that during that time Ann Arbor city bas more often been rated too low, and every supervisor in the county knows it, except the supervisor of the lst and 2d wards, Ann Arbor oity. Let us analyze this " table " of the supervisor. The only part of it for practical usc, 9 that showing the cquali.ing for the several years named. The columns marked "i higher," " lower," " multiplied by 3 in twenty years," etc., etc., meaos nothing in determing the justice or Djustice of the work of equalizing. From thU table I flnd that n 1859 Ann Arbor city was equalized at 1 9 the total valua ti ri of the county. And in 1879, 20 years after, he equaliz d at 'he ha in o, 1 9 of the i al . i i on. None wilt den tl.ni A ii Artiór city, fiom fine growih durinp that 20 years, eh'uld have bren tai 'I in 1879, as com pared with the balance of the county She jshoxdd pay a greater share'ofthe otate and cnunty taxes than h rlid in 1S59 bat m equuliied - a il exaoi K uli f - ¦ ¦ - " ¦ -" t' r !! Ann A.bor ntfe o high ib 1859 or too low in 1879, hieii was it ? The board o! supervisors in 1880 rvidentK ihcikht Aun Arbor too lote t eyearbeforf, we fi i'1 Jhi wa miei Iroui tbepoeitiou o( mySnu 1 9 of 'he state an! couti'y iaxi-8, i pa)i gol 1 7 n 1880 Y.i-ian'i ci'y, in 1b59, rtpresented 1 12 of the t'tal valution ot' i hu county, while in 188Oeberei.roKiiis 1-11 ot the total valuation. The writer of this been quiie familiar with the board of supervisors of Wash tenaw county for 20 years past, and he knows that the country supervisors never exhibited a disposition to heap an onerous ttx on the cities, "especially Ann Arbur." Twenty years ago Ann Arbor was a much " lighter" weight than now. Can the supervisor of the lst and 2d wards of the city of Ano Arbor, estimate the amount of capital brought to this city during the past 20 years? Can this supervisor oot see that with annexing the lower town (now 5th ward) and other additions to its territory, the accumulation of much capital from other states, besides so large an addition to its material wealth by citizens of Michigan, that she ought, in justice, to represent a much larger aggregate of wealth in coniparison with other towns, than she did twenty years ago? True, the country towns have increased in val ue, som e of them more largely tban other, arid they have been rated accordingly. The townshlp of Sylvan, that in 1859 was rated at 1-32 of the wliole county valuation. In 1880, with the enterprising village of Cbelsea growing in its midst, is raiscd in value so as to be rated at 1-24 of the total valuation. The town of Manchester that was rated in 1859 at 1-24 the aggregate value, in 1880, with its two railroads, and bence an increased value in its real estáte, is rated at 1-20 the total valuation. The writer of this offers no excuse for the errors in equalizing during these many years, but they were errom of judgment, I think, not iotentional. But the city of Ann Arbor should be the last to complain. Her taxpayera do not feel aggrieved, or they would not re elect Mr. Krapf and Mr. Gregory for so many years " that the memnry of ulsn runne'h not t the contrary. " They wouM have feit that a " changc" was nccessaiy, and they would have had it. They would have said: " If you men Uave not influ ence or ability to save us from njuxt taxat'O'i. ;.loa-( st'-p down and out, and we wiil try ik w men The c umry supervisors for the pasi 20 yenri twen in the nriin fair dealinü &¦ d honóraWo men, and the ebaiye that ilii-y wouM liea; largi' a' d duproiortion at 'x - '.n the ciiies, "eieoial y un Ano Arlor," i some hinf more ih ni a reflection. on tlieir hon"ty or their nreilitrenee. The -iipervisor "f th' 11 and 2'l wards of Ann Ar Or, lias bwn In tnir iu tbii vein lor N o"h r nprrvis.r o ilie c'üy fi'ift fanit wii h 'h coutitrv mi a vi or-. No supervisor of the oity i' Ypsilatri (Om pliin-, fspeoially of the country íiipervisors But it is for the supervisor of the lst and 2d wards of' Ann Arbor. like tbe two !¦ ys in the nur-ery, one coiuplained to the tnother that 'Tomny's piece of cake wns tbe biggest," and was so clamonus tliHt the niother to paeify him, m asiired the liece, when it was found that not. Totumy's but Conrad's piece was the larger. Uut then " A maircotivlnced agalnat bis wlll, II of tbe unie oplulon slltl." Fib. ia, 1881.