Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1872-04-26
The Grand List of 1870.

The Montpelier Watchman and Journal
couriecusly copies our srticle en- the Grand Lat
Of 1870, as compared with the ." true vaiusti5n'
of the census, prefacing the zane with the FOL
owing remarks
In response TO the request therein confined,
we publish the following srtcle. We hAve little
TO Isy upon it until we learn the real value Of
the appraisal by the Census Bureau Sc a test Of
the appraisal in the grand list. The controversy
on the tt Of 1870 WAS as to the spI raissl Of real
estate only whereas the contrast presented by
the FREE PREss If, apparently, between the tax
able real and personal property IN the list, anu
the gross amount Of property Of 10th classes IN
the census returns Ii is obvious, therefore,
that We must know whether the census returns
do or do not embrace the property which is MOI
taxable before we can recognize the propriety
of using there returns ss a test Of the justice
Of the appraisal of taxable real estate in the
grand list The difference, etweea the sg-
gregste property Of the State as given by the
census and the amount in the let, Is 81 Il
100 per cent. Of the census amount, but the
theory Of the listers il to put property into the
Int at two-thrds Of its value. The difference
between So Is and Sc 42-l00 per cent. is %
09-l00. 1t is important to know, first.
whether this difference of % Per cent. and
fraction, represents property IN the census
which is not taxable if so, then II lie necessary
next TO know the amount Of untsxsble property
in the different counties and finally, TO test the
justice of the appraisal of taxsb.e real estate in
1870, we mutt compare II with the valuation Of
that property in the census. In this view Of
the case, We are forced TO say that We are not
ready to accept the figures OF the FREE PEEss as
demonstration on the one hand. ana on the
- -, -. ala
ssry to show whether that paper is right or
wrong.
We understand from the preface Of the Super
intendent Of the census that the &" true valus-
ton of the census does include the non-taxable
property But that is an element in the cacu-
lstions which does not sfIsct materially the De
mOnitr.tiOn of the injustice done To tie coun-
ties Of Franklin and ChittenIen, becsure it
doubtless forms approximately I uniform
percentage Of the true valuation through
out the State; and can make hut
trfng difference with the c0mpdrGftre relults
a, between counties Thus if We we're to deduct
20 or % per cent. for non-tsxsbie property from
the figures ofesch county in the column OF d" True
Valuation" (Which would doubtless be an exces-
rive deiuctiOn) the tables would still chow the
County of Chittenden assessed at nearly double
the rate Of the counties Of Essex and Rutsnd.
In fact any such uniform deduction only in
creases the ratio by which the assessments On
the Counties Of Chttendeu and Franklin exceed
the average for the rest Of the State.
We undertake to say that if the editor Of the
Watchmaa will give careful study TO the table
Of Wealth aad Taxation in the Census, be csnno,
escape the conviction that the Grand Lists Of
the two counties named, are grossly extensive,
s compared with the rest Of the State The
only escape from this conclusion is to wholly re-
ject the L" True Valuation Of the Census, as
unreliable Which would be to discard vslu-
alton carefully made in detail by government
officer, because it does not agree with the Cuesses
Of gentlemen to whom the tScis nay prove IN
pslstable.