Mexico weekly ledger., 1890-05-08
H MONEY LORDS.
A Correspondent Thinks the
, Board of Equalization
Discriminates In
Their Favor.
To the Editor of the Ledger.

MO-, May HAY
ing been requested to write a reply
to "One of the Board" and also to
answer some of the oral excuses
being offered by members of the
Board, l send the following for
publication in the LEDGER:
Assessor Mclean, at Beagles
school house, stated that he start
ed out determined to raise the as
sessment on the banks to par.
which he believed to be his duty
under the law, or bring down the
assessment on money, bonds, etc.,
in the hands of private parties to a
level with the banks. At the same
time he admits that ne had no
hope that the increased levy on
the banks ''would stick" Then,
the inference is plain that his in-
tention, from the first, was to
tighten the burdens of taxation
upon the private capitalist.
They tell us that the action of
the Board is a measure of COM
promise; that the bank assessments
were raised IL per cent, and
like securities in the hands of
farmers and others lowered to the
same level. Who does this ar
rangement benefit? Evidently those
who hold the money, bonds, notes,
etc. Everybody knows that the
great bulk Of this class of property
is in the hands of the banks and a
few capitalists. The farmers and
laborers of the county, SO far from
being the holders of such proper
ty, are the debtors to those who
do, and have to put up, not only
the enormous rates o~finterests, but
the iniquitous bonus charged by
the agents of the money lords.
The banker can we'll afford the in
crease of 2 IL per cent. if he and
the few other capitalists can ship
35 per cent. of the burden of taxa
ton upon the farmer and other la
boring classes.
Again, Judge Kendall says that
outside parties list many thousands
more money, etc., than the banks,
and lnsinuates that it is largely in
the hands of farmers. If this be
true then their interest ought to
predominant. But we are told that
the banks were represented before
the Board by one of the most able
and astute lawyers of the county,
and other capitalists, while it does
not appear that the farmers had
any voice whatever. This il evil
IDENTIFY unfair and would be con-
sidered unjust in a proceeding be-
fore any court in the universe.
Let us now examine the law under
which the Board claims to have
acted. The law provides that
owners of shares of bank stock are
not required to give it in to the as
SCISSOR, but that it shall be given in
by the president or the chief
officer under oath, and at its actual
cash value. I want right here to
call the attention of the reader to
how such officer is to be governed
in determining the cash value. The
law says ''the officer making the
same shall estimate and include all
reserved funds, undivided profits,
premiums or earnings, and all
other values, belonging to such
corporation, which cash value shall
be assessed and taxed as other
personal property. Nothing can
be palmer than the conditions here
laid down in the law for determin-
ing the actual value of such prop
erty. Did the members of our
Board inquire mlnutely into these
conditions when they lowered the
assessment? Did they inquire as
to the reserve funds, undivided
profits, etc.? Did they have the
fact before their minds that this
same bond stock was at a premium
of over 20 per cent. when they re-
duced it 35 per cent. below par?
Why is not the holder of such stock
allowed TO give it in? Simply be-
cause he is not supposed to be in
good condition to know Gifts actual
cash value, as is the chief officer of
the concern.
Nothing can be clearer than that
our Board lost sight of the true in
tent, as we'll as the letter of the
law, and by the oily rhetoric of an
interested attorney have been led
to discriminate largely in favor of
the capitalist and against the al
ready over-burdened agriculturist.
But they tell us that the assess
ments were too high on this class
of property as compared with farm
property. Let us see: Art. 10,
sec. 5, of the Constitution, says {:
"All property subject to taxation
shall be taxed in proportion to its
value;" and any law or order of
any Board contrary to this must be
held null and void" New, what
principles should govern in de-
termining this proportion? One
evidently sound principle is the
quality or adaptability to yield
-