The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1892-02-04
Hon. A. F. withrow's Complaint.

the Legislature from the counties Of Al
leghany, Bath and Highland, appears in
communication, essaying reply to an
editorial published in the VIRGINIAN
several weeks ago. He assumes that we
have attacked" him, and from the tone
of his language considers that we have
done him injustice. We must remind
Mr.. Withrow that he is a public servant;
that when he introduces a proposition
into the body of which he is member,
with the Interior purpose of having it
enacted into law, affecting the interests
of his immediate constituency as well as
those Of the whole State, he should re-
cognize the privilege of friendly criti-
cism and an examination to see whether
it is in the line of wise public policy that
such proposition should be matured into
a statute. Friendly and legitimate crit
icism cannot be properly construed into
an ''attack." 1t is simply doing that
which the act of the introduction OF the
resolution invites and warrants. The
judgment of no man is infallible wheth-
er he be representative in the House of
Delegates or the editor of newspaper
1t is by legitimate discussion; the pre-
sentation of conditions to be affected by
legislation the criticism and fair inves-
tigation of measures and propositions,
that the truth is reached, and no man
can fairly claim that he has been .'at>
tackled" under such circumstances
We give Mr.. Withrows article space
in the VIRGINIAN, although he has not
asked it,so.that those who read the arti-
Gle in this paper may have the privilege
of seeing what he has to say We will
always extend to Mr. Withrow the conr-
tesy of hearing through these columns,
when he asks it, and on an occasion of
this kind, when he does not ask it,
The VIRGINIAN did not question Mr..
Withrow's notifies. We had and have
no doubt they were honorable and that
his inquiry in the Legislature was for
what he regarded a good purpose We
simply questioned the policy involved in
his proposition, as that which was calcu
lated, in the first place, to keep capital
DO injustice to those who had invested
large means in reproductive mineral
lands. so far as the policy of Mr. With
rows inquiry is concerned, there is moth
ing in his communication that changes
our view of it. The reference he makes
to Low Moor and Rich Patch, leaves out
OF the case the amount Of money that is
being brought into this county by their
operation, aggregating hund re s Of
thousands of dollars, which is dIffused
through all channels of trade and crea-
ting new taxable values wherever it
touches-adding wealth and revenues to
the State every revolving year This
only demonstrates the force of the views
we advanced, and proves the wisdom of
encouraging capital to locate in mineral
lands with the ultimate purpose of de
velopment. What the tax is that is paid
by Low Moor and Rich Patch we are not
Informed, although interested in the lat
ter, but we have no doubt that it is
enough to show that the county of Allie
ghany and the State of Virginia are
greatly benefited by the capital inves-
ted and the enterprises associated with
them. Whatever Of income NAV be de-
rived from the operation of each, will he
subject to taxation, as well as the plants
themselves. The law is sufficiently strin
gent as to this and is availed of as one of
the sources of revenue to the Common
wealth.
Mr.. Withrow, however, avoids the
question suggested by his inquiry, in the
resolution he submitted to the LegisIa-
ture, when he instances the properties
now paying revenue. 1t was not direc-
ted at such properties. Low Moor, Rich
Patch, Dolly Ann, Iron Mountain, Stack
Mines, Longdale, &C., in their present
active condition, were not included in the
scope of his inquiry. 1t was the estima-
ted value of undeveloped mineral lands,
and not developed mineral properties,
TO which attention was called. Our con
tention was that it would be unjust and
Injurious to estimate the intrinsic value
OF non producing mineral lands and
make that the basis of taxation There
Is more or less risk in all such invest
ments. Large additional capital is re-
quired to make that which is pl..eed in
them remunerative, and until this con-
d1tion is reached it is not wise policy for
the State to come in and add to the bur
dens to be borne. AS soon as the capital
SO invested becomes remunerative-as
soon as the dead wealth becomes active
values by reason Of its contact with cap
ital and enterprise, then it is that the
county and State may reasonably share
in the investments and the profits grow
ing out of them. We know of one old
citizen of this county who owns 7O0 acres
OF land, mostly mountain, which he
holds at 100000 because he believes
there are valuable minerals on it. al
though it is not now assessed at over
$4,000. Would it be just to tax that land
at the estimate the owner places on it's
intrinsic value, when sufficient capital is
applied to its development? There are
hundreds of comparatively poor IN, n, so
far as ready money is concerned, resi-
ding in the counties Mr.. Withrow repre-
sents, who own productive mineral
lands, that estimate their intrinsic value
far above their assessment. Would it be
fair to place these lands on the tax list at
the estimate the owners place on their
intrinsic value, before any development
is made or capital has been induced to
locate on them for the purpose of devel>
opment?
Mr.. Withrow's illustrations do not il
lustrate. Loudoun county is one of the
Oldest, most populous and most highly
cultivated counties in the State and one
of the richest by reason Of the improves
ments in it's farming districts Dickinson
is one of the newest, most isolated and
sparsely settled and undeveioped of the
counties in Virginia. Unlike Loudoun
it is not largely appropriated to agricul-
tural purposes, but is held as valuable
for it's minerals and timber. Loudoun is
in developed state, and her taxable
properties correspond with this condi-