The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1880-01-08

Memphis " OHIO, the Memphis, Claras'
vile and Louisville, aud the Decatur
road under LEASE, all Of which, Lease
AMI ALL is clnssrd a one road and 50
taxed by Mr. Ayledge and his Board.
Why uake an exception Of the
n !shville. Chattanooga u s.. Louis
rlIroady Surely it i, not spelling
hook case Of my hail ond your OK
Mr. Aliedgc says The Eoard OF 1877
assessed the Nashville a Chattanooga
division separately, and at Sl2,3 GS "a
per mile. THIS is true, and is also
true that the company gave separate
schedules for the separate divisions.
The action OF the then board was per.
haps right certainly permissible, but
the premises now present different
ease. Res roEsIvc 20 the statement III
the card. that the stock Of the Nash
Vile " Chattanooga road was rating
from 81 to 81 20. VIC append the fol
owing card from Col. j. W. Thomas
Nasty LEE, Tenn Dec, 20, 1870
Charles \ Gibbs, Secretary of State,
Cnpi.ol-Dcar Sr: In answer to your
letter of this date, wOulG respectfully
state ihHt the market price of the
Nashville, Chattanooga and ST. Louis
railroad stock, in May and June last,
was Al and Az cents, which would
make the original Nashville d Cha,ta-
nooga stock three times that amount,
viz; l23 and l24t cents. Respects
fully, j. W. THOMAS,
General Superintendent.
Which explains itself, only adding that
sc learn that the basis Of consolila
ton allowed original stock of the n
u e road TO be exchanged into con-
sol dated stock al 3 for /
As to the last clause in the commu
nlration "they (the people) wish to
know why railroad property cannot he
t,xod as other property" we would
say that IN 1877 avery careful assess
ment of tie property Of this road was
made, and the grand total OF all is III
visions aggregated S2,75j.S2O 2l; The
present assessment as passed by the
Board of Examiners aggregates 81
943 $40, or about I per cent. more
. than in 1877 How is it about "otheI
property 2 Since 1878 the property
of the State has fallen of, or decreased
in value as assessed of over $4,000,
600. or 10 per cent, and Mr.. Arledge's
own county reports falling OF IN val
ne of II per cent, AMI the valuation
of the roads, let it be cmembered, was
toy law to be taken as of May !, last
which was prior TO any Use in rails
road stocks in the State. How vii
his do for Il "comparauve statement,
MAY not the railroads lie justified il
asking the question put by Mr.. Ar
ledge for 'tha people," and know VIII,
they have been taxed II per cent
= higher than other people on thei
property?
One other word, as is stated in Nj
a 5 card The Governor dissentct
from this award, as he had pertec
RIGHT to do. Ii the Chief Justice o
our Supreme Court should give dis
senting opinion in a case decided b,
the court, We do not think he would h,
liable to impeachment therefor even a
the bar of public opiuion; nor do W
think it would be just to the rest of tn
court to arraign them because the,
could not follow him. While upoI
The subject let us state that the tota
valuation OF railroads in 1877, for tax
alion, was Sl3 Isl, l05. So; the presen
assessment as passed and corrected by
the Board of Examiners, is SlS,l75,>
lO7 81. being an increase Of S4.4lS,
OSl SO, or about 80 | 3 Ter cent, the
amount Of over assessment ny the
Board being 81 ,902 ,56707. OR reas
ons for this reduction were that in
many cases from 40 to GO per cent. in,
crease were added to former assess
mcnts founded on schedules Of about
the same property; that two years ago
the proof taken and filed was volu
mnous and searching and conclusive
Of the fairness Of the then valuation,
We were then members OF the Board
Of Examiners, and scrutinizcd the
work Of the Assessors closely and en-
dursed their action by our approval
We could not stulti'y ourselves, and
ON the same schedules, and without q
single item ofproof to supper, it filed
or taken by the present Boarn, say
that oar action VA. wrong on that we
were then careless and did not do Our
duly. For the elucidation OF our &C
ton il the premises we append the fol-
loving resolutions, copied fran the
minutes of the Board of Examiners,
and which were voted for by us, to
wit:
Be it resolved, that it is the opinion
OF this Board:
!. That it has no power to take fur
Their or any proof as to railroad values
2. That a proper construction OF the
statutes creating this and the Board of
Assessors of Railroads, etc, makes
the sworn schedule or statement Of
values. property, etc, therein required,
the initial standard, to he taken rs cor.
rect. unless attacked Ivy proof and a
different standard established on such
proof hy the Assessors.
That the record shows that no
proof has been taken in any case ucted
on by the Board of Assessors
a. Fiat the Board OF lS79-80 has re.
icrred to the proof taken by the Board
nrpppliuu and which In f,c, 10 iii. nm