Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1881-02-15
OMMUNICATED

J tahia . Wkh U
extracts frem a letter uadsr the signature
of II, published February 1.
Now, while the writer Of this letter has
probably stated facts, SO far as figures 60, as
to taxes for 1879, and az to the duty of
boards of education regarding the levy for
school districts, there are other statements
BY no means clear. He says the reason 30
taxes were collected in 1880 "was owing to
the solens at Wheeling who enacted o law
which is SO eomplicatsd with Red Tape that
it cannot be executed or enforced" Now
let US have that law that cannot be enforced.
Has it ever been attemptsdH IF not bis as
Eertion amounts to nothing, and is of NO
value on the subject, and would much
rstt or defer to the laws passed by these
soloas than to the Judgment Of this would
DO sslsn of the County Court. who assumes
to appear to know, but doesn't.
His statement regarding r. r taxes diff
fer very materially from those Of the Audi.
tor made to the House of Delegates on the
subject of county taxes, and below 10 the
report:
AUrrrea's c1f1cn.
uu WHEELING. January 20. 1881.
HOE. e; WILLIS WILSON,
Speaker Of tie A'ass IF D<isgefes:
Ske house Of Delegates on the s4th instant, /
the oorrespondsnee bstwesn this ofics and the
CLERK of the County Court of Jefferson oouaty
n.ekSIu 20 Zoe assessment OF tax uPeu the
Tbs 1aias Of the property 81 tn. Baltimore
for the year 1855 vas s471. .ss &C. ss ~Sish a seeant
was certified to the County Court for appor-
1ao9Tsn to the school districts on tho Esd day
vembsr, 1880.
ra As The Court failed to apportion the ,alne of
ssssasnt for tag due the several districts Of tho
csuaIJ rhnu the property of either the Ralti-
mere and ehio RAILROAD Company or the Shen-
andosh Vale, Railroad Company. I hovsver
of said oompanies in said eoan ptESffer r state q e and
seentyt axes. The Baltimore and Ohio Rail
smsunt Of state taxes sats so aoi ss.. .ns .% bst ssslis se;
Se nsT IN" eonntY tax: claiming that ii had been n.
have: hovever. added ten per cent. to The
:e.eIas IF snsh county tax and certified it to
Very respectfully,
josrra s. Mn1n., Auditor.
Here is q direct issue between the Audi.
tor and Mr.. Baylor. who says. "Me road
has no arrangement acith the County Court"
ihey saa settle that matter between them>
selves.
Now as Is the 8. v. r. Road:
AVR1Tsn's oFFIeE.
n,-. wheeling. November ~. 1856. 5
CLERK ce SSs7I SogaT IL
t;d DsAs Sia;-d have not received tho apper;
will MAKE tie assessmsn t of railroad ia. early
IN next montA (by the 1sth of tho month nj
tAnt time I canDet ineiads anytbinr for the diss.
'f'05 Yo I'M yf frn county d in tie / fssessmsnt;
Clicks OFFICE OF TIE COUNTY Cou.r sp)
,o.,, GEAnIEsTowE Nsyember 20. 1885,
JoSEFH y MILLER, Esq, Auditor:
DzAa SIs al seud you a list of fines and of
osInty Stassss eieetsd October l2th, 1880. and
required to make for yeu as soon as thsy con be
Tks Cosrt ,,.5o ma or5ar a..
sue1set of taxing railroad property. There was
az oraer made SONS wears ago valning tho Bal
each district which ito court thought wonid
stand good until altered. Tho shenandoah
ths control eff the contractors, as We arc in
formed and believe. Yours respectfully.
,Tnos. A. MooRr.
Clork of County Court.
Here IS tchere the Information comes from
thai Ar. Baylor asks for, and the presump-
ton Of any ens reading the above oerrespon>
dcnee would be that the clark spoke bv .eps.
authority, and did not assume tho responsi,
bility himself, and l do not hesitate to saw
that it was the duty Of somo one in authors
ty to see that the above road was properly
assessed for taxation for county purposes,
and not have il running over the county
paying State taxes, but not county: "beine
yet in the hands of the contractors" What
difference was it if the road was in the
hands of the contractors? Way was il not
assessed ? Was it net the duty Of the Court
to do this as in 1879? And did not Mr..
Baylor know it was not donel If not. it was
his business to know and from whom did
the elork get his information?
AS to the SLIGO paid BY the eity of
MartinsSurg to the Auditor, this was ouly
an illustration as to whom all taxes should
DO paid, by counties or corporations. and
any school boy woald have known the Court
had no authority over municipal taxas. and
the extract never intinated it had in any
way.
Again, as to q and his friend not bsinp
$50 much concerned about taxes az their
oWa advancement" This sis idle yapor>
ing" and l give him oheerfully all the bsne-
Mt he can derive from it as the Scion Of tho
Osurt, but will say have NO political aspi-
%rattons, aad have never besn a chronic Office
seeker, and do not run the country ever on
free passes.
The charge of my opposition to the Conn.
~ Court is false in every respect, as I yeted
against the amendments, but thought then.
As now, some improvement could be made
on the system.
when the communication was handed the
Spirit, the editor was instructed to give nv
name to any ono. and to say the letter could
be ssen OF application to me; NO conceelnent
was attempted.
Tho writer of the letter. from which the
extracts were taken, is fully able TO vindi-
cate himself, and the public can now Judge
as between tho Aoditor aud Mr.. Baylor.
The publication was not attended to east
imputatiou on any individual, But to accom-.
Pl''h, If possible, just what it sseRs to be
new doing, namely to open up a question
that for soma years has been discussed by the
people, to see what amount of taxes ara new
due, past and present, to enforce. if possible.
the collection Of same, and to see where the