Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1871-02-02

used. most highly improved by the dwell
iugs, stores, mechanics shops and taoto-
ries, and therefore be of the highest value.
Yet in spite of these facts palpable to
everybody, the Free Press asserts that
Chittenden County, because of its dense
population, many of them poor, illustrates
forcibly the preposterousness" of our theo-
~. It does quite the contrary, as we viii
endeavor to show.
The Free Press admits the dense popu-
lation in Chittenden County, and especial
ly in Burlington city and Winooski viii
lage. How came it there, and why does
it live and thrive threre-all of it live,
even the poorest, and most of it thrive b?
The reason simply is because the greatest
proportion of the most highly improved
real estate is there, and there demand
for labor and the means to support the
laborers. So population came, and came
rapidly, as the census proves; and with
this influx of population came greater
demand for still further investments of
personal property in real estate, in the
building of shops for these people to work
in, stores to supply their families, and
dwellings to shelter them, saying nothing
of speculative investments in city lots,
which are not neglected altogether. Thus
is was population, no matter whether rich
or poor, which forced the increase of high
ly improved real estate in these two
towns and by the same law real estate
goes up or down everywhere, -rlses or
falls with the population The only pre-
posterousness" in this matter is in the
failure of the editor of the Free Press to
consider the facts which haze for years
been daily staring him in the face.
According to our theory, rapidly in
creasing population demands enlarged in
vestments of personal property in real
estate; and a permanent and dense popu-
lation requires highly improved real estate
to be maintained. Now of the truth OF
THIS theory Chittenden County is itself
| strong proof. Its population per acre is
the most dense of any county in the State,
| almost double the average; its real estate
is highest in value per acre, by either
process OF reaching it, the legal one or our
| own; and moreover its proportion of tax
able polls to population is more than 80
per cent. 6elOao the average for the State.
This low proportion of polls ought t. show
a corresponding excess in the proportion
4 Va pSIsOAdA tIOPCIhJ W lhAoOiC pOlAS but
it does not. The personal property in
| Chittenden County Is not much above the
average per poll, while its proportion to
population IS more than tJtee7a per- cent. be-
lar tie general average for the State The
personal property Of Rutland County, re-
turned tor taxation, is, in proportion to
population, nearly double tn of Chitteu-
den S98 to SD; aud Addison, Caledonia,
Orange, Washington, Windham and
| Wiu1-"r are also higher than Chittendeu
How will the Free Press reconcile these
facts With its claim for IA rtduc'i vi in the
real estate of Chittenden County or how
can it claim that Chittendeu proves ouI
theory 10 be "prepost eroua y Chittender
County belo7c the acreage Of the State IN
personal property, when its taxable bank
stock exceeds that of Caledonia and Wash
ington Counties, which return higher
| proportion Of personal estate than Chit
tendcn l. the Free Press prepared Il
make the humiliating confession that
| Chittenden County has greatly defrauded
| the State and wrOnged other counties in
it's return of personal property or will il
not much rather confess that our theory
| il correct, and that Chitteud2n holds a
|
oily because she has larger investments OF
it in improved real estate, and therefore
! deS6rCeS the highest assessment of real es.
tate in the list We firmly believe that
we are right in theory and in fsct that
we are defending the honor of Chittondeu
County; and that our good friend OF the
Free Press is unfortunately wrong
The facts as to Chittenden are in the
| trua nc Franklin aCI IaIf
| counties also; and thus all the complain.
ing counties are forced into the dilemma
! of admitting either that their real esLate
was MT put too high by the averaging
committee, or that their personal property
stands in the grand list too low. We had
worke ont this demonstration last week
as to these counties, excluding both the
lists and popul ,ti0ua of the unorgauizad
| towns and cores, 80 - 10 III Ike our figurea
apply to the list for state taxes ouly. The
results were; average personal property
per head Of population in the state 865.98
Chittenden c,,unty, $54 81 Franklin,
S38 II; Grand Isle, Sal Al. We have
since received from a me mber of the aver
aging committee a more detailed state
ment of personal property. made on the
list rs reported by the oommittee-that
is, embracing both organized aud unor-
| ganized towns-and measuring by the en-
tire population. For this reason the re-
suits vary slightly from our own, hut 20
slightly as to prove both estim 4tss to be
substantially correct The table ia "a fol
lows
Personal property per taxable poll-Per head Of
population-And proportion of taxable polls
to population.