The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1880-01-29
RAILROAD TAXATION.
COL. ARLEDGES REPLY TO SEC.
RETAEY GIBBS AND TREAS
URER POLK.

Editor Home journal:
In the American of Dec. 29lh, 1879,
appears what purports TO be an answer
to my card ia the Home Journal OF the
18th Of December, 1879 The infor-
nation sought in my card was: Why
the assessment of the N, c. IL ST. Louis
Railway was reduced by the Revising
Board. The gentlemen have failed, as
far as eau see, to assign any good
reason for 80 doing.
The reason why selected the N, c
g. St. Louis Railway to test the ques
ton of assessment rs corrected by the
Revising Board is, il presents the dit
ference between the Assessing and Re
vising Board--it beinga line in which
one part of the road is exempt from
taxation, and the other and more val
uahle par), is not exempt. And my
Object alone is to bring the question
before the public in order that they
may see who has committed error
The question under consideration is
Can railroad OF less value, excmp,
! from taxation, consolidate with o road
! of greater value not exempted rroI
, taxation, aud thereby draw from The
l. valuable road any Of its value, ant
transfer the same TO the railroad q
less value exempted from taxation il
It's charter? l find nothing in any o
~ the acts Of the Legislature upon rail
= road taxation that would authorize
y snch q conclusion. The act of 70 o
II contains no such thing. The Re
,ising Board Was the Board that as.
Z scssed for the years 1870 -7-S-iou
g years taxation. They then assessed
Il these two roads separate and PLACED
: upon them separate valuations, placin.
G upon the Nash d Chat. branch
value Of 8l2,3GS GA per mile, and upol
the Northwestern branch "a, 1856 16 pc
mile; and for the years 1879 80 thi
3 same Board has assessed both end
" Of this road a, IS 500 per mile. Now
as there was nothing in tho statute 0
/" 70 and IT in couflict with the assess
u ment by the same Board for til,
years 1915 CTS, land they die
. assess the roads separate for thos,
8 four years., why is it wrong for !h'
same Board to assess them separat,
Tor The years 1879 so? The law ha
not been changed. They assessed 70
1879 so under the same law that the,
assessed for the four preceding years
And # we (the Assessing Board, ar
in error in assessing this road separate
for 1879 so, were they (the Revising
Board, not in error in their assessing
for the four preceding wears separate
They say that they were acting unde
! plain provisions of law when they
! made their recent assessment, and refe
us to the act Of 1877, sec. 3 chap. 7e1
And did they not act under that sam
= law in their assessments for tho year
lS7567S7 And if it was good la,
: then, why is it not good law for thei
assessment for the years l879-80
And they admit, in their answer, tina
c it was good law then. They say i
i their answer that it was right then-a
least permissible. What makes
wrong now, when the law remains tn
i same2 And why is it that they do no
: assess them separate Tor lS79-80 q
y they did for the four lcars-'75.6 rs
@ And they ask me dehunlly why dir
not change the law VIXEN was in .h
. Senate, If ! wished them to assess til,
= roads separator In answer to that,
3 can only say to them that the law as j
|. was seemed to he sufficient for them t.
4 assess the road separate for the YEAR
1861 8, and the same law was suili
cicnl for them to assess the roads To-
| gether for 1880. | saw no need 70
changing the law. So | hope the,
will excuse me for not making an,
: change. as they seem to c0nsrue it /,
: suit their own convenience. And tn,
law as it il will not permit you t,
transfer the value OF road that is tax
able to road that is not taxable
, thereby depriving the State, counties
and towns Of he tax that the law. un-
der the Constitution, gives them. The
Constitution says that all property
shall be taxed according to its value
That you are mol doing when you
transfer the value from Il road taxable
to one that is not taxable. This seems
to be one Of the errors they have com
mittcd. They evidently, from theil
answer. thought the Northwestern
road had waved It's exemption, which
is mistake; and this accounts partly
for the error they have committed.
They say, in answer to the Governors
objection to their position upon this
question, that the Nashville & North
n