West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1883-11-16
VALLEY DISTRICT.
GEM Pass. Agt Kansas CITY

Journal written by the Hon.tG) James
\. Brown, some of the points in WEIGH
we wish TO notice.
Ia tho FIRST place he attempts to show
that GuSCman assessed the real tStatcin
his own district lower than that I'm King
wood district according to cash value.
Now, Brown compares Gusemau's land
with that of MIR. Reeds, recently sold.
hut let learn tho fats i'm the case. Guse-
man bought his farm ten years ago ut
SEQ per acre on one, two, three aud four
year credits. without interest. It il truo
that Reed has sold his land for S3I per
acre and given the purchaser time on
which 10 pay for il while { is assessed at
Sll per acr re. Now, il has beer claimed
that the said Reed farm is The best i'm Val
ley district, and upon il is some Of tho
finost timber in the district; yet, accord
ing TO Browns theory it should not loo as
sessed very high as 1t has no rental val
ne.
Speaking OF tho assessment OF Gusa~
mans farm, is 1T not assessed hjg6cr than
any othor in Valley DISTRICT
AN'N t'e w. AlAhNN Nliilt NOIl lhlllNollN III
Eingwood. Mr. Brown owns lots con.
tanning about three anda halfacres upon
which, according TO tho gentlomou's own
statement there arc buildings which cost
about 10000. Now, this property wax
assessed at 81 400. md GusCman reduced
1t To $4,000. The County Court. wo sSe
informed, after refusing AT several sess~
ions, did, lato I'm the evening Of October
2, or thereafter. reduce IL To 81 900 Now
LEI ms compare Browns property with
Mrs Cathariue Kemblo's lots which have
no improvements upon item, not even "A
icuco. Now, is IL not true that she has
been offered 81 900 cash IN hand fora lot
containing less than one fourth Of AN
acre? Vow, Browns lana lies adjacent
t. this. and suppose that IL should DO di-
vdel into quarter acre lots, then ut $500
apiece, less than oue-third their value a,
compared witE Mrs Kemble's, they
would bring the Honorable gontlomln
$1,000 and let him havo his SI5, 900 worth
OF buildings free from taxation, no he
claims 1t should be because he uses the
building as Law on e and II has no rea-
tai value
Indeed, Mr.. Brown must be very for
forgctful, D.d not one of the gentlemen
whose land property was reduced at the
October term OF court, brig Guseman's
land books into the court room at the Ju-
ly term Of court, and claim that Guseman
had assessed the property in the town Of
Kiogwood higher than in New burg;and did
~, -,
could not raise the assessed value of prop
crty in Ncwburg only on new buildings "a
the engines or helpers had been removed
from that town and property there had
not advance in value Further, e II not
rue that Guscman did reduce the proper
In King~ood ? Mr.. Smoot was not
member of the Court then, but is now.
Mr, Brown would try TO make the peo-
pie believe that the assessment OF King wood
and Nowbufg are enoneous. The gentle
man goes on with his article and states
that Col. Honroe's, Capt. Godwin's and
Jos. II. Hawthorne's properties are assessed
beyond all reason. Now, have these gen
tlomen omTlaiued OF this {? Not at all to
my knowledge. Col. Monroe Informs me
that he has not complained and is satisfied
with the reassessments. Mr.. Hawthorne
has bic house fnished and expects 10 have
i put upon the land books, the same 80
assessed by Guseman. Guscman did not
see the inside Of bis house when be assessed
il, put supposed II was flushed, but mas
since btCn informed that II was not.
The gentleman talks a grcatdeal about his
six percent interest on real estate after
deductng therefrom insurance and taxes.
Now, suppose three brothers, h. y and G.,
have $40 900 each IN cash, are they not,
assessed for $4,000 each ? Now then
A takes hie $40, 900 and invests $40 0OO IN
land, upon which &c puts buildings worth
~ 600. His farm he stocks, and therefore
according To- the theory of the gentleman
u would have a rental value and should
be- assess9d f,r the full Gmount. r. takes
his $40, OCO end invests 50. 900 in land
tOwn lots, upon said lots be- builds him q
mansion worth $1,000 Now then do We
understand because y uses his sl5. 200
mansion for q law flee that he should ou-
" be taxed for s. 900 because it has no
rental value But q, who loans his mon.
~ to the poor mau, Tor the improve
mont Of the country, and that business
may be- carried on, aud receives bic six
percent interest aud out of biz elk percent
pays or "a percent tax every dollar IN
his S2O 900 Or pefjures himself every timo
the assessor comes around. Would there
be any justice IN that ouch being worth
the some, 9 paying taxes ON his 900. 900
aDd y only paying on $1,000. The theory
Of the gentlemen To-, thatif an sore of land
lying in Valley district that would pro
duce 2j bushals Of corn, but could bn.y be
sold for $50 per sore, should be assessed
Tor Tho same as one acre in Ktrgw0od
which would produce 2j bushals Of corn
yet could BE- cold for 500.
Watch out, brother farmer, that the
Hon gentleman don't saddle an the taxea
upon us craukf, because an wc dig and
hoe,rais- grain and the OK and compel ou-
farms to have rental value.
Yours Respectfully.
AN OLD CRANK.