Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1881-05-26
Taxation.

"o"'o, anofo ceF'aiu auu moro ulea8reeaDle 70
the human mind than the payment of taxes.
It cannot be avoided either by exemption
from assessment or from process for collection,
bet with the returning harvest Of drops comes
the annual demand of the tag gatherer. Its
disagreeableness does not result 60 much from
the want of patriotism or Willingness to eup-
port civil government as from the inequality
oh the burden imposed on the people by
reason Of the imperfeotion of apy and every
law heretofore enacted on the subject. Our
people feel the necessity of governments and
appreciate its advantages as we'll as the duty
OF every man to contribute to its support,
but the relative taxation imposed creates
dissatisfaction. Under an arbitrary system,
BY which property is classified and fixed
values affixed to it, inequality from location,
from topography and from products necessa.
rily results. Upon the ad palorm system,
fair in theory, inequalities in counties and
individuals Of the sumo county result from
The standard of value adopted by parties
returning property, so that the burden is not
fairly distributed.
In an article taken from the Register,
under the title, "Evasion of Taxes" some
weeks back, it was shown that the value of
mules for taxation was assessed at $62 in
Charleston, S68 in Fairfield, $72 in Georges
town, $S2 in Horny and $37 in Laurons.
Now 1t is known that Horny is q poor and
thnly populated county, ono of its staple
products being turpentine, while Laurens
is one of the wealthiest and most fertile
farming sections of the State. Docs any
man believe it fair that citizen of Laurens
should not pay one half as much on mule
as tho poorer county of Horry2
The condition of things, says the samo
writer, is worse in tho large, prosperous and
wealthy counties Of Abboville and Edgefeld,
while tho value Of such property differs but
littlo in any part Of the State. In fact such
property in the rich farming counties of
upper middle South Carolina is generally of
better class and sells higher in market than
ln the upper and poorer counties.
STOCK drivers, passing Walhalla, seek o
market in such counties rs Laurens, Abbc.
vile and Edgefield and price their mules at
Sl25 to SITS. We think we saw in IN into
rior journal that the average cash price at
which mulos were sold last spring WINS about
si25. In the entire State the average value
Of horses in 1879 was S44 and of mules $50.
In oconee County tho average value last
year was for horses fraction over $40 and
Tor mules fraction under $50, which for this
section is fair average return, considering
that the average vulue is reduced by colte.
our people raising stock, and also by this
section being poorer and less favorable to the
leading staples Of the State.
We reproduce also tho following remarka-
bic statement of inequalities taken from the
same paper: "By tho assessment of 1879 tho
average amount Of personal property of each
Democratic voter was $348 in Beaufort coup
ty; SlT9in Lexington, $33 in Barnwell, S37
IN Abbeyille, S25 in Clarendon, and as low MS
$l8 in Edgefield, and $40 in Hampton. In
Charleston (including the city) tho average
was only $685." Nearly all these counties
adjoin or lie contiguous to each other, and
Lexington is known to be poor county COM
pared with Abbevlle and Edge6eld.
The same article upon general summing
up says: cat n reasonable estimate the yalue
OF horses, mules and personal proporty in
haurens county, upon which tho payment of
taxes is evaded by means Of improper
assessments. amounts to $628,Oso, in Edge
field S9l7 ,l49 and in Abbeyille $73O,738."
Are these estimates and statements cor
reotf Tho Register states they have been
made up from tho report of the Comnu
troller General, and oven if partially
inaccurate they show great inequalities
and gravo ground for dissatisfaction.
1t is evident these inequalities are not
due to individual returns in counties benp
excessively low, but in looking to low
stendard of value as the basis of valuation.
Doubtless individual inequalities in yalua-
t'ons in these counties aro not greater than
IN counties where property is assessed mnch
higher. The difficulty and injustice result
ing 40 not rise from an over low valuation in
any county, but upon relatively Just valua-
tion among oil tho counties of tho State for
whether the valuation bo low or high, if il be
equal on oil the State, it can mako no differ
ence in the burden Of taxation. On a very
low valuation the rate of lovy must be raised
and on q very high valuation it will be re-
dnoed to raise given sum, and in neither
case does tho burden operate uniustly on anv
tax payer. But whom, as the article quoted
from shows, the valuation is unequal in
different counties, then the tax lew bears
nnequally. Of course it would give our
State better name and Position among the
3ther States that our assessment of property
should show ns prosperous rather tban
paupers. In this respeot fair valuation
would tend to attract capital and immiera-
ton, both from lower taxed lowed and
from appearances of prosperous condition,
The whole properly Of the State is valued
at less than one hundred and fifty millions