The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1881-05-28
NOW WE CATCH IT.

NOW WE CATCH IT.
As was to be expected, our leader
last week reused some ire. The first
one to pour out the walls of his wrath
upon our devoted head does it thus /:
Editor Collar Chronicle:
In an editorial headed "Scanty As
sessments" you have taken my name
to lead your remarks upon several
"skin-fiint" culprits. Your statement,
so far az l am concerned, is entirely
erroneous; and, If there is any truth in
what the assessor tells me, you must
have known it to be so when pub
lished, as he told you when making
out the list that the Paramount planta-
ton, of about 1000 acres, assessed to
me last year, was not on my assess
ment this year. This alone, if there
was nothing else, would account for
the 5000 difference in valuation for
this year. Neither is it true that /
have given in 5000 acres of land for
$500. l gave in about 1900 acres, val
uing the land in cultivation at $40 per
acre, and the land in woods and thick
cts at SO per acre, which is as high
valuation as any land is assessed at
in this.parish or the adjoining ones.
As to the statements that land is
more valuable this year than last, not
being personal, does not require refut-
ing. As to my not being willing to
sell at four times this valuation, is u
mistake, that being double what |
paid for the land when cotton was SELL
ing for 80 cents pound. With the
prospective low price for the coming
crop, we must naturally conclude that
assessments will be lower instead of
higher. For the purpose Of equalizing
State taxes our land must be valued
at what the same lands are iu adjoin-
ing parishes. AS to our parish becom-
ing Financially ruined" don't let that
trouble us. Our police jury have had
experience and know exactly how to
rid us of that trouble. As you have
made these charges publicly against
me, please give this statement the
same publicity, and oolige
THos. X. SMITH
We have to plead guilty to a piece
of bnngling last week in getting Mr..
Smiths name substituted for Col. E.
G. Randolph's. In 1880 the follow
ing entry appeared on the assess
ment roll:
'.RandoIph, e. g., 5000 acres, known
as the Randolph plantation, between
bayous Darro and Riggolette, ward
2, valued at $780,"
Our next sin was in failing to cred
it Mr.. Smith with Fairmount planta-
ton. valued at $4,000. After we had
completed our list last week, the as
SCISSOR. to whom we showed our fig
ures, a short time afterward men,
toned the fact that Mr.. Smith was
entitled to q credit for Paramount,
but we neglected to give it Having
discovered the error, we intended to
do Mr.. Smith the justice of correct
ing it this week.
Now that we have craw-fshed as
gracefully as we know how, it is
hoped that Mr.. Smith will forgive
the single mistake we made among
the twenty odd names given in our
last issue. And right here let rs say
that we do not have word further
Of apology to make for our comments
upon the decreased assessment. Ev-
cry man who gives in his property
subscribes to the following oath:
I do further swear or af-
firm that the valuation affixed oppo-
site each item of said property in said
list is the actual cash value thereof,
according to the best of my Judgment,
knowledge and belief.
So help me God.
No man can honestly give in his
property at one-fourth or one-half its
value. And for the reason that ali !
men viii not be honest in giving in |
their assessments, we advocate .
State board for the equalization Of
assessments. Because men in other
parishes put an unfair valuation on
their lands is no reason that the
same should be done in Grant par
ish. That it has been done to q
large extent we can abundantly sub
stantiate, and Mr.. Smiths exception
in no way refutes our charge against
the 'sekin- hints."
The Chicago Weekly Nesos is what