Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1872-04-17
The Grand List OF 1870.

10 response to the request therein contain.
cd, we publish the following article. We have
little to say upon it until we learn the real
value Of the appraisal by the Census Bureau
as test Of the appraisal in the grand list.
The controversy on the list of 1870 was as to
the appraisal of real estate only whereas
the contrast presented by the Free Press is,
/. apparently, between the taraJle real and per-
sona property in the list, and the gross
amount Of property Of both classes in the
census returns. 1t is obvious, therefore, that
we must know whether the census returns do
or do not embrace the property which is not
taraJte, before we can recognize the propriety
OF using these returns as a test Of the justice
Of the appraisal Of taxable real estate in the
grand list The difference between the az
gregotc property Of the State as given by the
census aud the amount in the list. is So 40.
loo per cont Of the census smouut, but the
theory az tbe listers sfo put property into
ths .I.i ai f'elfl.-fi af is value. The diff
fr,.es hefrnH 1i az I'd a. TOO per cent.
H-t rsn' io know. frst,
va r.f ,su, and a
Nsr a fis census
t.an .i b. ncccs.
Ur untsxabIe
aaI finally,
uta rrr.ial Of iaraBle
r raf eamraro IL with
ur ti.st'. -rfs M the census.
In tts e.ts ef ftr et.. care forced to say
that ve ore aai reaiy 90 ,-,ept the figures Of
the Re, Pres as a demonstration on the one
hand, and on the other haud that we have
not the elements necessary TO show whether
that paper is RICH, or wrong.
From The Darlington Fee Press.
The taxpayers # Chittendcn and Franklin
Counties need no jnggng OF their memories to re-
call the famous " Equalization Of 1870. when q
Committee OF our Legislature. hastily, arbitrarily
umustly, and illegally, raised the assessments ui
real estate, "a returned by these counties fHg
per cent. for Chittendcn County and fhirfy Der
cent. for Franklin County There was abundant
argument, after this wrong was committed, "a
NiiNN lIhA " WIS iEllNs anu tlht liutt
were submitted tp prove that the property of those
counties, in consideration ut their population and
growth. Oughf to have the increased value set uu-
ON II Tor taxes. We showed the lnllncy OF some OF
these at the time We showed that the increase
set upon the real estate Of Chttenden County by
the Legislature, was fiCeBty-HiHe per cent. more
than the increase Of it, population would warrant
But there was more effective reply than that -
and that was, that IN p0im Of faci there WIS NJ
such increase in the prices or value Of real estate
in tins county. No amount OF figuring could con.
vince the farmers Of Chittenden county that then
farms should be set in the list for taxes at about
double the rate per acre Of the valuation Of IN,
rich farms Of Addison and Rutland Connties, when
in point Of fact, the Chittenden County farms woulc
realize no more for their owners per acre, either
TO cultivate or to sell, than the Addison and Ru.
land County farms.
But the hrmers Of this county submitted 70 -
wrong, paid their taxes (~ime ui them under ptu
tc>t,) and have waited for time 10 right the wrong
and 10 relieve them from the inpumtious freely
east upon them throughout the State, Of attempt
ing 70 get out OF paying their iull share OF Ii,
State taxes.
We claimed at the time that the property o.
Chlttcnden county wus assessed, A. a result %
the action of the State Equalization Committee
ut least Twenty-Five PER cant above its proportion
ate value aud we have never doubted that an i'm
partial valuation Of the property Of the State
would demonstrate that fact
Such valuation and such demonstration ha.
now been furnished by the United States census
We received, three days since, irum the Super
ntcndent of the census the advance sheets %
the Statistics OF Wealth. Taxation and Puhli,
Indebtedness These Contain tables giving tn,
value OF the real and personal property ~ ASSESSED
for purposes OF State taxation, BY COUNTIES. and
also the actual value Of the same rs estimated b,
the officers making the returns.
Superintendent Walker states that great care
has bepn fakpn "a 10
of confidence To secure uniformity. the duty
OF making the estimates was Committed, in Yer.
mont and the smaller States. 10 a single Deputy
Marshal in each selected with respect t. special
qualifications and character, ana their figures
tased on Il thorough pers iual canvass. the Super.
ntendent says, - may he Assumed o. I've reas1na
big just and close 10 all the facts and condition,
ui the case " We copy below the two columns
: o as,eS~e and true valuations, and have addot
to them a column showing at what per cent o
tie real value the several counties have been A.
, ~essed-the assessment, il will he understood be
. ing that made by the legislature Of 1870.
1t will he seen that whereas the several othe
counties OF the state assessed at rates varying
from 81 to 10 per cent OF the true value If thc
property, Chittenden County is assessed Mt s,rfv
four per cent, and franklin County Mt fnyggh
per cent Taking cut those two COUNTIES, w
lind the average assessment for the rest ot IN,
state To be fOry-OHf yer cent OF the actual value
In other words, Tor two years this county hn
been paying tcenfy three per cent. more than H.
| fair share OF the state taxes, and Franklin Count,
serentceH per cent. more. The amount paid b,
tins county in excess of ITS lair share is ubuu
S25 900.
The State equali2ing committee protested t,
, have assessed the various counties at a unilurn
D valuation OF O6 per cent. OF the actual value o
the real estate, assuming that about the sam,
proportion Of the personal estate would be listed
= These figures show that only in the case OF Chit
4
ton, the total for the State being but i3 pei
cent, and for the State outside oi Chittender
and Franklin counties but Al per cent, The,,
: figures carry their own argument We ask III,
other papers Of the State to lay them before thei
: readers.
. Tof1fasssss,d rsJte Tn. t8J.,rf