Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-14

while honest dealing is promotive OF
honest dealing. Let our Legislature
for the power and the duty are both
,beirs--insist upon honest land valua-
tons. They can accomplish much in
this direction If they will, and this
would, in the nature Of things, lead to a
more general disclosure of bonded pro-
perty and other personal values.
PRO BoNo PUBLICo.
0u Land Assessme ats Their Inequaii-
~ and Injustice.
To the Editor Of The Dispatch:
There is much in the present financial
condition of Virginia which is neither
coInmendable nor encouraging. The
number Of defaults which have occurred
among the collectors Of her revenues in
dicates a bad state of morals, while the
confusion that is said to exist in some
Of her public offices, and the large ac-
cumulation Of delinquent-land taxes,
which many Of the people are now pro-
testing against the payment of, seems
to proclaim very great looseness and
neglect in the management OF her affairs.
! will not pause to assign reason for
this lax state of things lest | should
offend some who honestly believe that
the sovereign rights of the State require
to be more carefully locked after just
now than her sovereign duties.
But there is matter Of the largest
Importance to her welfare, second to
none that could possibly enlist the wis
dom and energy Of her General Assem-
bly,, which l should like to bring to
their attention. refer to the land as
sessments, which constitute the major
portion Of her taxable values, and
which, as now ascertained, are unjust
to the revenues Of the State and ope-
rate unequally and unfairly as among
the counties and as between the own
ers of real and personal property.
Further on | shall speak Of what the
Constitution and the laws prescribe,
but in the outset let us look at what is
disclosed by the assessments Of the last
ten years:
In 1873 the land assessment
OF the counties was...............SlS5. 47O.S47
That OF the cities was 6O.07j,55O
Total....... .0i6,397
In 1880 we all know that a deter
mined effort was made by the then
dominant party, wherever they had the
power, to make as small a show of
values as was possible, accordingly
IN 1850 the assessment of the
counties 20 33Se24
That Of the cities was................. G3.934027
1Otal............ S234 2o2 81
4 decrease In five years OF Sll,773.446.
In 1855 the assessment Of the
counties was.....................".S 421.2s4
That OF the cities was............". sO.533.4l3
Total....................... .......s262 est, 697
An increase over 1850 Of s29. 6sS.746.
But note The city valuations IN
creased between 1875 and 1880 by
s3,358,477 and further increased be-
tween 1880 and 1885 by sl6,60l 1886,
making total increase in ten years of
1889, 1868, while the valuation Of the
counties is still So, 049, j62 less than it
was ten years ago.
Can any one believe that under the
general improvement and development
of the resources of our State in the last
decade, consequent upon the building of
railroads, the opening up Of mines, and
the better culture of lands, the real es
tate Of the counties, if properly esti-
mated, would appear to be less by three
millions than it was ten years ago,
while that Of the cities has, in the same
time, increased by nearly twenty mil
lions, or about 33 per cent?
Let us look at the counties separately.
The following, thirty-eight in number,
show an increase over the values Of
lS7j-to wit : Accomack, Allegheny.
Augusta, Bath, Buchanan, Campbell,
Charles City, Clarke, Craig, Elizabeth
City, Fauquier, Frederick, Greensyille,
Halifax, Henrico, Henry, Isle of Wight,
King and Queen, King William, Nanse-
mond, New Kent, Northumberland,
Page, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Princess
Anne, Pulaski, Rockingham, Russell,
Southampton, Surry, Sussex, Tazewell,
Warren, Warwick, Westmoreland,
Wise, and Wythe. All the others,
sixty-two in number, show smaller
valuations than in 1875.
The following counties, eighteen in
number, show smaller valuations than
in 1878 Or in iSsO-to wit: Bland,
Dotetourt, Buckingham, Charlotte,
Chesterfield, Cumberland, Franklip,
Gloucester, Grayson, Highland, Lancas-
ter, Lunenburg, Madison, Montgomery,
P0whatan, Prince Edward, Rappahan.
mock, and York. The rest, eighty-two
in number, show with three EXCEPTIONS
an increase, though in many cases very
small, on the values Of 1880.
Now, the counties in both these lists
are from all portions of the State, and
what is especially striking is that in
both lists we find counties which we
should have less expected to see there
than others which do not appear. The
fact is that whatever may cause sur
prise results not from any want Of fair
dealing on the part Of the cotfnties,. nor
even necessarily Of their officers, but
from the loose and unguarded manner
in which assessments are made, and the
fact that they are subjected to no ex-
animation, comparison, or supervision
of any kind on behalf Of the State.
Without meaning to be invidious, let
us examine the returns from two or
three OF the counties. Let us take the
prosperous county Of Montgomery, in
one Of the most favored sections Of the