Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-01-15
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
TO THE PIRIIC
RicLmOnd ,Januurv ~. ISl


for consideration aud adoption by the board
OF principal assessors. ny one OF the members
OF that bOdy-having for its object n deduc-
ton oi six per centnm from the assessed value
OF lands of the second district, and of ten per
cent from the third aud fourth assessment dis.
trlctS OF the Commonwealth, having been act
ed upon on the 9TH instant and decided IN
the negative; which preamble and resolutions
are IN their manner and character calculat, d
TO excite considerable attention aud of course
the interested feelings of the people OF those
sections of the STATE aud where the subject
| Is not tull> understood may be p objective of
| impressions unfavorablo 10 th" members Of the
board residing therein who fOnud IL their in
dispenSable duty TO vote against them And
II being understood that the said preamble
and resolutions have been published in the
EhqnNer OF Tins city, part OF the members
aforesaid avail themselves of the same mrdinm
| to convey TO those whom they have the honor
OF representing in thu said board the reasons
which governed them in giving the vote atore
saId and thereby rejecting said resolutions.
The ground first taken by those who sup
ported the proposition il an assertion. that
upon comparative view of the valuation of
lands throughout the state we find those in
the central aud western TO be valdcd much
higher than those in the eastern part of the
state Of the sam fertility To this we reply,
| that it an assertion unsupported .y Sufficient
evidence OF ITS being fact is TO be regarded,
| the majority may have erred in its decision
but being IN this case not supported by such
1
the assertion was not regarded as conclusive
on this important subject
The second is" thai if we are not tied
down bN The rigid rules of selling price, or can
shew that the valuations as regard selling
price have not been correctly made or that
tiic valuations have been influenced by tran
sient or accidental causes, there Will be good
reaSou tn attempt an equalization OF the assess
mtnt upon the same principles that governed
! IL in III, comparison aud equ lizing of coun-
ties and parts of counties with each other"
IL Is admitted that u these cases did exist
which however are not admitted TO exist there
would he reason To mak the attempt prOpO-
sed hui as the law actually requires and Ill
reefs the aSsessm"niStn be made accordin to
the selling price in every part of the state
With proper deduction thereirOm to reduce
those price, To "a value, and this power he
iHg wholly cnnHdcd tO the assistant aSSesSoIS :;
and as II unequivOCaliV appears. that the sid
assistant assessors have generally performed
that duty as directed Il fact admitted even hv
tue mover OF The resolutions himself as relat q
To the FIRST dIStiIc', and who was also
| member Of tue board that acted i'm that
district when applied to for information
by one OF the members from the weS-
tern district. upon thdt subject dnrug de-
bat and also Acknowledged IN "A uU4Iifi.d
manner in relation 10 ali the district. n auoih.
e. part OF the preamble aiHIesdId the GER
tam deduction i'cm these facts is that the
seSsment- have been correctly made in pruCi-
pie and ought to he Sustained If transient or
accidental causes have nflucnced the asses
meutS in any particular county. or town or
parts OF COUrtieS. these must be partial cases
and can be remedied and ia several instsn-
ces have been - NEEDED nothing therefore is
sheWu by which a comparison aud tuualiliug
bvd.tricts. rs iu the case Of counties aud parts
OF counties 50 a. 20 produce change of the
valuations Ia districts IL feuderpd necessary (;
and II Is evident that the rule which uI.hi he
applied. in changing the relative value Of
ADJOINING counties or paris OF HE same county,
IT appiied to whole districts Of The state would
have an unjust operation. aud he productive
OF Inequality rather than Of equality for il
cannot he presumed that all The assistant asses
SOrs M any One district have failed in their
duiicS-aUd still less that in three ont OF four
districts in tie state this failure has happened
HE succeeding statement ~ the pc
amble, and thr inference drawn IhPrelrom
are still Intended to convey tie idea, that
transient or accidental circumstances
have operated 10 Influence the assess
menls; The answer 10 this is already given:
but II NAV be pertinent here 10 remark
that II these circumstances have had an
effect, that ELECT has been almost excIn
siyely lcll by The eastern and central dis
irlcis of the state in both of which thew
have operated, not To d"press, but actual
" to enhance HE value ul property, 10
the great Disadvantage OF the owners in
the assessments. II is fact which can
moi no denied that lands IN ihe vicinity
OF Richmond are assessed al 8 1000 per
acre, lands which for the purposes of ul-
iiyaiion arc nj very small intrinsic value :
whilst HE mountainous lands Of I e west.
rrn district are only assessed al u row
cents! We ask, wouId ibe promolvc ofihe
principle ct equalization TO add 10 the
S 1000 anolh,rS IO0--andin he same pro-
portion 10 reduce The cents Such would
have bccI the effect Of adopting The pro-
posed resolutions, as WILDE herein. At The
END OF these observations, clearl, sbewn.
Many other instances where Ills influ-
ence has operated in these two districts,
might be adduced going TO establish ihe
truth here laid down
we come next 20 hose parts Of the reason