The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1883-08-14
Comptroller Barnes Reply 10 Col.
Chipiey.
CoMPTROLLER's OFFICE,
STATE OF FLORIDA.

OIL w. d. Cnip4ey, Wee President Pensacola and
.aaante Railroad
SIR: Your open letter, addressed TO me as
Comptroller the subject OF the tax assess
meni OF the Pensacola and Atlantic Railroad
reached me about the same time it was given to
the public Indeed | was not advised of any
complaint against the value placed upon your
road until SAW ii in print. To make reply
to your letter would be treating document of
the importance OF that with an indifference it
does not merit, and to reply through any other
medium than the one selected by you to convey
it TO this office, would also be less than it de-
serves and probably not meet your expecta-
ton.
II may be said further too, that as this COM
plant IS more in the nature of an address to
the public, than direct appeal to this depart
ment, which alone can remedy the wrong com
planned Of it is fair TO conclude that it was in
tended to create a public sentiment against the
action OF this office and against, the system of
taxing railroads adopted in this State. This in
tentlon can, in my opinion, be defeated by SIM
ply showing the errors into which you have tai
len.
You say in the outset that the assessment
placed upon the railroads for the current year
is $7705,2 70 against "a, 1876 942 40 last year,
and regard this increase as evidence of oppres-
sve discrimination against the roads The
fact that the railroads assessed last year
at what Was thought 10 be their real value and
were raised to it the present year affords in itself
no evidence of Oppressive discrimination
Heretofore, in most instances, they fixed their
own valuation, from which there was no appeal
until the act OF 1888 gave to the Comptroller
the power TO assess them, when "he shall have
cause To believe that any return made does not
give complete and correct value of such rail
road and property from the best information
he can obtain. Besides there are 261 miles
more Of completed road to be taxed this wear
than there was last. Before you can Justly
charge Oppressive discrimination" you should
show that the roads assessed al more than their
full cash value, as other property in the State
is required to be. Let us see how the case
stands in respect to the Pensacola and Atlantic
Railroad
A circular letter was addressed to you under
date OF March 22 inviting your attention to and
quoting the law on the subject Of taxing rail
roads, which required you 10 make full return of
the property including the value thereof, by the
LIST Monday in May, and blanks were forwarded
for that purpose. The only return made was
the number OF miles of road in each county, and
the number and value OF locomotives and cars,
emitting the value Of the road. The law makes
il my duly after the 1st Monday in May, ii re-
turns are not made, TO ascertain the value of the
road from the best information Can obtain and
apportion the same among the counties through
which 1t passes. Your road is new, ironed with
the best steel rails, and constructed, according TO
the report OF the State Engineer in superior
manner. 1t is claimed to be first class in every
respect, and reported TO have been built at a cost
of more than TWO and half millions. 1t was
known 10 have recorded mortgages for pur-
pose OF construction and equipment to the ex-
tent of $3000,e 600. Now | submit whether il is
HE n fbat ia Inc
l6l miles of new railroad OF that character and
cost, and securing that amount of investment, at
81 0O00-a little more than half of its pledgess
This afforded the best evidence at command OF
the value placed upon the property by the man
agement itself But you say
:" If the assessment is made upon the
cash value of the road we should be cred
tied with $15O,64S.49, which represents the
steamer Mobile lost at sea, amount expended
on telegraph line upon which the " estern Tn
ion Telegraph Company pays taxes, the differ
ence between cash price of rails and spikes at
time OF assessment and date when we bought
the amount paid for damage to buildings and
ferries in right of way, none of which adds to
the cash value upon which assessments are
based.
I'VE would also deduct over 800, 900 paid for
extra dispatch in building our road, An item less
than the matter OF interest would have amounted
to, had We adopted the old plan and consumed
a year or two more in constructing our line.
This reduces apparent cash cost for taxing pur-
poses to 1920, 765. SO"
How these losses and expenditures can de-
tract from tho value of the property, when the
amount they represent Is not taken into account
in the assessment, confess my inability to COM
prehend, nor do | see the force of the reasoning
that the road should be credited for the extra
outlay caused by of the dispatch with
which it was built. Mr.. A has new residence
which the Tax Assessor values at $4,000, but A
objects because, he says that while the house
was in process of construction, and near com
pletion, fire broke out and destroyed it, and he
lost 80 600 thereby, and that must be deducted
from the assessed value of the property. Again,
Mr. BIS house is valued at $4,000, and he
complains that his house was constructed with
extra dispatch, causing an additional outlay of
81 900, and that sum should be taken from the
assessment This may be thought to be very
absurd and unreasonable on the part of Messrs.
A and b, but to me it is quite as reasonable as
the position assumed in the above extract, when
you ask 10 be credited with the loss of the Mo-
bile and for extra dispatch in building your
road. Had the assessment been based upon the
actual outlay in the construction of your road
there would be some force in your reasoning, but
1t Is plain TO see that II not for after all the
deductions to be thought of, including price of
rolling stock and buildings, the decline in iron,
and 500, 900 for dispatch in work you make the
" cash value OF your road 81 1885, 93 Oh, which
is $llS,293O3 more than the assessment placed
upon it, In view of this, the illustration put bv
you OF MIR. A and building factory, the one
upon Il favorable and the other upon an unfavOra
able foundation, amounts TO nothing. After set
Ting upon 81 728 2930 3 as the Cash value OF the
road, you claim that you should be assessed at
only so pei cent. Of that amount. In this as in |
the whole line of your argument, you lose sight |
OF what the law requires. 1t is made the duty |
OF the revenue officers to assess property at its
" full cash value and | have no power or pur- |
pose TO disregard its provisions when it comes !
within my province to act
Having shown that your railroad has not been |
assessed above its cash value" even by your own |
figures, your complaint to the public is reduced
simply to this: That | did not assess il al
half its " cash value"
You have much more lV SAY in your letter
upon the practice and policy of taxing railroads
generally AS that matter pertains solely I" the
legislative department of the government, aud rs
the Constitution and laws of the State are clear
TN that point, do not feel that it is nv duty to
discuss the subject. Very respectfully
w. ID. BARNES, Comptroller