The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1880-01-29

So much for their consolidated ASSESS
meG,. This same thing was attempted
Nv the road on the Board OF Assessors
for the gears 1875 6 rs, and Messrs
=. and q. were members OF the Board
Of Equalizer. then; and that Board
of Asses, 0rs sent the schedule hack 10
them and had them TO give their SEIZED
ule separate. The Board Of Assesso RS
to winch | belong sent the conso lida.
ted schedule back to them by our
clerk, and demanded separation,
They refused, and we then separated
the roads and assessed them sccoid
ingly, lust as Messrs. Polk and Gibbs
and their Board did, as above stated
But these two gentlemen say we were
in error in 50 doing; and the result is
clear loss to the State, counties and
towns, as before stated. Bat they say
VIC divided the roads without taking
proof as to the equities, What more
proof did We want of the equities OF
proportion than the example your
Board set in the division you made
Two years ago2 and il we need any
more it was supplied in the commnnI-
cation made by Mr.. Thomas to Mr..
Gibbs. He says the proportion OF
stock is three to one, and this IS the pro
portion we gave it; aud we still think
it Was right.
The gentlemen say that the assess
ment OF this road aggregated ~ 75J,-
$40 81; say the present assessment, as
passed by the Board Of Examiners, is
50 $40, or about per cent. more
than 10 1877. This statement, as made
by them, is erroneous, from the fact
they made it under the presumption
that the Northw sci ern road has waved
r It's exemption, which is not the case.
Instead of the assessment for 1890
being per cent. mole than in 1877, il
, falls short more than one million dol-
lars, as the figures will show. They
say, how does this compare with other
property? They say the property
since 1878 has declined 10 per cent,
+ and in my county III; and the value
| Of railroads was to be taken May lsl
last, which, they say, was prior to Il
rise in railroad property. And they
ask. defianlly, how will this do Tor a
comparative Systematically not the
! railroads be justified IN asking Mr.
: Arledge why they have been taxed II
per cent higher than other people ON
their property, answer by saying.
just because the facts are not that way,
1t may be true that the value Of prop
crty has decreased but can they show
that the property Of this road has de
precialed Certainly they cannot.
And when they assumed to correct
what they supposed WAS error in our
asses ment. which was not earlier than
the last of August, the stock had adj
vanccd to very high tis.re. But let
us take the figures given by Mr.. Thorn
as, the Supcrin'en1ent--and this was
before the time of the Revising Board,
LIST of May) and before the rise. Ii
was then 1913 to l244. Does this look
like decline in railroad property, as
compared to other property by the
Revising Board3 l wish them 70 take
!. the four millions of stock Of he N. 4
c. Railroad and allow 1913 or 124t on
the capital stock, and see il the road
then is not worth more than IS, 800 Ia
the mile, or even Sl7243 10 per mile
Evidently the Board Of Equalizers
: have labored under the mistake thai
the North western road WAS not exempt
ed IRON tax, and the additional ide,
that, for the purpose of taxation, they
could consolidate the roads.
The old Board land they were me III
r hers Of ii aud the last Board though
? that railroads could not evadc the tax-
I ing of their property according to val
. ue in that way, and in the face Of thu
t constitution. We thought that in til,
t absence of my Statutory provisions up
Q on the question, that where no loss o
I value accrued to the State, counlie,
$ and towns, that a road might be assess
7 ed either as consolidated road or as
separate roads-lhe only thing that
. constitution requires is that propert,
, be assessed by its value. They So,
that Ye assessed other roads as con.
soldated lines, and for that reason w
understood the Law to be that way
We understood the lsw to be that wa,
if no injustice was done in getting Il
, valuation upon the entire line; hui
where the value o! some parts Of the
road was 3 for l this would be wrong
And that is the error they have fallen
into, and our Board may haze commit.
ted an error in the roads that VIZ
treated that way, :f the value of the
roads are not CT uniform value upon
the entire line. But if that was so, i,
was the duty of the Revising Board to
make the necessary correction.
would like to notice other things
in the answer, hut my reply is already
too long, and close by saying that |
look upon the Secretary and Treasurer
as honest, clever men, and l regret that
they have fallen into the error they
have upon the taxation of railroads,
and hope that the time will come when
all property will be taxed equal. Then
the burdens of taxation will lie more
satisfactory. JESSE ARLEDaE