Richland beacon. [volume] (Rayville, La.) 1869-1890, 1889-06-01
ASSEM- MENT OF PROPERTY.

1t is time enough t. run up on lands
when the demand becomes more
general. There is reason and policy
in everything There is no good tlnan-
ciaI reasoning in putting lands so
high that the owners prefer to forfeit
them to the State rather than pay the
exorbitant tax imposed on them. a
lust and reasonable valuation is bet
ter for the State government and
parish government than exorbitant
valuations, for often the lands 60 to
the State. as is the case with thou
sands of acres, the State gets no reve-
nue and the parishes actually lose, not
ONLY the revenue, but all claim or
lien to the property. Then, as mat
ter of interest to the parishes and
State. would it not be better for the
board to put SWAMP lands at 80 cents
than put them up to 81 and ~ and
lose all claim to them? Property
should not be valued for more than
the cash valuation. If tax is not
cash we would like to know what it
is, for it is said, nothing so certain
as taxes and death" If losing the
property was all it would not be so
bad, but it places property IN the con-
dition that it cannot be disposed of.
The parishes have no claim in the
world, and lose all revenue after it Is
adiudicated to the State. The State
loses the revenue during the owner
ship, and when it comes to disposing
of it, people are afraid to buy. A
reasonable valuation is not only bene-
fetal to the State and parishes but
less oppressive to the tax payer
Tax that amount to confiscation is
not in the letter of law, essential OF
necessary. A reasonable valuation
so as to get money to defray the ex.
penses of the State and parish gov
ernments, is all that is necessary. II
is all very we'll to have plenty o.
money in the parish treasury 1--WE
admit this), but does it put money il
the parish treasury to assess lands Sc
high that they 90 to the State ant
are lost to taxation? These are seri
Gus questions for our board of asses
sors to take into consideration. Why
do lands have to be raised every year
The answer is plain. Because thu
valuation, on some lands, is so ex
orbitant that the owners prefer to lie
the property 50 to the State for non
payment of taxes. Is this not con
fiscation? Is it right to put one rar
ish down on the overAowed roll will
only $500 to $500 with equal as mucl
overlooked territory as neighborinI
parish, while the neighboring paris
is put down at $4,000 or $4,000?
In our issue of May 18th we re
ferred to this matter, of a board G
equalizers. One of the finest railroad
in the United States is only wort
$500 per mile, while the poor ma
who happens to have some waste an
overlooked land is forced to pay a
exorbitant tax or allow his propert
con6scated. His tax is doubly az
pressive on overflow lands. We thin
overflow lands should only be liabl
: to overflow tax. 1t is worthless wit
? annual inundation-hence the leve
) tax,-but if this land that is subjet
b. to overflow is assessed in proportio
E to high land and in addition tt
, levee tax is added this Is oppressio
Y in the extreme.
: Some years ago we stated that
would be better to assess all lane
within specified limit with the levt
tax, that such discrepancies woul