Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1890-05-30


Total tax. $l2s, 345 70
Estimatimating as with Montgomery
County that one-half of the real estate
and improvements represents the value
of the improvements, we have the sum
of SO, $685. 42 from which to raise the to-
tai tax of $126, 345. rs which could be done
with tax rate of 3A per cent But the
State constitution requires the same
tax rate in all parts of the State, and so
the tax rate in Montgomery County
would be reduced to say per cent upon
its assessment, and raised to 5 per cent
in Pulaski County. Who would get the
best of it under the Single Tax, the
bloated bondholders of Little Rock or
the horny handed sons of toll in Mont
gomery County?
But there is another thing these as
sessments show. The farmer very we'll
money in proportion to landed property
in Pulaski County than in Montgomery
County. Little Rock alone has in it
more money and more commercial cred
its (that is, debts owned by residents)
than the rest of the State. And yet the
poor farmers of Montgomery County APP
pear to own four times as much money
and credits, and nearly three times as
much personal property as the wealthy
city men. How is this to be accounted
for, and how is it to be remedied?
1t is to be explained by the fact that
in txt ha 10
are generally the intimate friends of the
taxpayers; they know every head of
hogs, cattle, sheep, and horses that the
farmer owns, are fully aware when he
has loaned any surplus money he may
have, which is extremely rare, and are
fully informed as to the value of his
farm and implements, being them
selves owners of farms. In the city,
however, there is quite different state
of things. The tax assessors are
usually political "heelers," who obtain
the Office as the reward of party service
at elections, and who are first, last and
all the time tout for the stuff" They
are liable to be "seen" when it is to the
interest of large property owner, and
this operation has generally the effect
of causing temporary or partial blind
ness on the part Of the assessor to the
real value of the said large property
owners possessions. But even when
the city tax assessor is honest, how
much more difficult task Is his than
that of his rural confrere. He must
assess from fifty to a hundred different
stocks of goods, to give the actual value
of which would require months of the
time of fifty experts in the various bust
nesses. He must know the cost of silks
and calicoes; horseshoe nails and fine
guns; -four and gun-powder; diamonds
and tinware; the tilmy fabric of French
laces and the rough ccrdage from Ma
nilla. He must be able to estimate the
cost of buildings, from the marble man
sion of the millionaire to the wind
swept shanty of the poor renter" He
must, to do his duty fairly, be able to
discriminate between the paintings of
Meissonier and the ''pot-boilers' of
home talent; between the old tapestry
which hangs in the wealthy mans hall
and the cheap American replica which
the humble imitator of Ibis money
bags contents himself withal. Iu
short, to fairly assess personal property
in great city is task which would re-
quire superhuman ability and more
honesty than is readily to be found in
these degenerate days. There is no
such difficulty, however, in getting at
bare land either in the city or the coun-
try. In the city any real estate dealer
can sit in his Office and give you very
close to the cash value per front foot of
any lot you may name; in the country
any three honest farmers can tell the
value of any given tract of land after
allowing fairly for the improvements
that have been put upon it by the energy
and enterprise of its owner.
Then, too, the single tax would have
the effect OF making every holder of
land, who is not using it, let it 60 at
once. This in the city would enable the
working man to get him building lot
near his place of work for very little
money; and in the country it would pro-
vide farm for every farmers boy when
the boy was large enough to need a