Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1881-02-19
COMMUNICATED.
Editor Spirit IF Jfsrson:


which is so complicated with Red Tape
that it cannot he executed or enforced.
Now let us have that law that cannot
be enforced Has it ever been attempt
ed' Ii not his assertion amounts to
nothing, and is of no value on the
subject, and 1 would much rather de-
fer TO the laws passed by these Solons
than to the judgment of this would-be
Scion of the County Court, who as
sumes to know, but doesn't.
HIS statement of the r. r. taxes diff
ters very materially from those of the
Auditor made 10 the House of Dele
gates on the subject of county taxes,
and below is the report:
AUDITORS OFFICE,
WHEELING, January &c, lSSl.}
Hon. f. WILLIS WILSON,
Speaker Of the House of Delegates:
SIR:-In response TO a resolution adop-
ted by the House of Delegates On the oath
instant, have the honor to transmit
herewith copies of the correspondence
between this Office and the Clerk OF the
County Court of jefferson county in re-
"
property of railroad companies.
The value of the property of the Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad Company in JEFF
ferson county for the year 1850 was s47l,-
43S. go, which amount was certified to the
County Court for apportionment TO the
school diGtricts on tine ODD day Of July,
1880, and again OH the 4th day of Novem-
Der, 1850.
AS the Court failed to apportion the
value OF railroad property to the several
school districts in that county, | was UNI
able to make any assessment for tax due
the several districts Of the county upon
the property of either the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad Company or the Shcnan-
dOah Valley Railroad Company. | how
ever made an assessment upon the prop
erty of each of said companies in said
county for State and county taxes. The
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
paid into the Treasury the amount OF
State taxes so assessed, but declined to
pay the county tax, CLAIMING THAT 1T HAD
BEEN OR WOULD DE SETTLED DIRECT WITH
THE COUNTY AUTHORITIES. | have, how
ever, added ten per cent to the amount
of such county tax and certified it to the
Sheriff of Jefferson county for collection.
Very respectfully,
JOSEPH 5. MILLER, Auditor.
Here is a direct issue between the
Auditor and Mr.. Baylor, who says, SHE
,ond hos no arrangement Wtth The
County Court" They can settle that
matter between themselves.
Now aa to the S. V. II. Road:
AUpIToR's OFFICE,
wuErIiNG November ~, 1881
CLERK COUNTY COURT,
CharlestOwT, w. Va:
DEAR SIR Il have not received the APP
portionment of railroad property to the
several districts in your county for the
year 1880. l will make the assessment OF
railroad tax early in next month (by the
10th of the month ut the latest) and UNI
less / get your apportionment by that
time cannot include anything for the
districts in your county, i'll the assess
JOSEPH S. MILLER, Auditor.
CLERKS OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COURT
OF JEFFERSON Co., w. Va,
CHARLEsTowN, November 30, 1880.
JOSEPH 5. MILLER; ESQ.,, Auditor:
DEAR SIR send you list Of fines
and of county officers elected October
18th, 1880, anu will send the copies Of
bonds, ETC., which am required to make
for YOU as soon rs they can be prepared.
The Court made no order this year OH
the subject Of taxing railroad property.
There was al order made some years ago
valueing the Baltimore and Ohio railroad
ut $40 900 per mile in each district which
the court thought would stand good until
altered. The Shenandoah Valley Rail-
road is still in the hands and under the
of
formed and believe.
Yours respectfully,
TIIOS. a. MOORE,
Clerk Of County Court.
Here is ,ohere The Information comes
from that Mr.. Baylor asks for, and the
presumption OF any one reading the
above correspondence would be that
the clerk spoke by some authority, and
did not assume the responsibility him
self, and l do not hesitate to say that it
was the duty of some one in authority
to see that the above road was properly
assessed for taxation for county purpo-
ses, and not have it running over the
county paying State taxes, but not
county, "heing yet in the hands of the
contractors" What difference was it
if the road was in the hands of the con-
tractcrs7 Why was it not properly as
sessed7 Was it not the duty OF the
Court to do this as in 1879, And did
not Mr.. Baylor know it was not don,i
If not, it was his business 10 know: and
from whom did the clerk get his infor-
nation.
As to the $1,760 paid by the city of
Martinsburg to the Auditor, this was
only an illustration as to whom all
taxes should be paid oy counties or cor
porations, and any schoolboy would
have known the Court had 10 aut1ori,
ty over municipal taxes, and the ex-
tract never intimated il had i'll any way.
Again, as to Fl and his friend not be,
ing $50 much concerned about taxes as
their own advancement This sis idle
vapoling." and give him cbeerfully all
the benefit he can derive from it as the
Solan of the Court, but will say have
no political aspirations, and have never
been chronic office seeker, aud do not
run the county over on free passes.
The charge of my opposition to the
County Court is false in every respect,
as l voted against the amendments, but
thought then, as now, that some i'm
provement could be made Oh the sys
tenn.
When the communication was handed
the Spirit, the editor was instructed TO
give my name 10 any one. and TO say
the letter Mould be seen on application
TO me; no coucealment was attempted.
The ritter of the letter, from which