The advocate., 1892-06-08

similar to that which you exhibit You
do not show the valuation per mile on
the road in the several states.
Next you undertake to justify your ac-
ton by comparing the assessments Of
railroad property with land, with lots
and with personal property, producing
the following figures:
Acres Of land In 1887. 9l3, ,344
Acres Of land in 1891. ......... .......H zoe, ,O2O
Aggregate value In 1887. ,9OO, ,666
Aggregate value in 1s9l.............. l7O,l6O,SOS
Average value per acre 1887 .sAl2
Average value per acre 1891 $50
And so you argue that because land
assessments have decreased per acre on
all the assessed lands from S412 to $3.50,
therefore railroad assessments should de-
crease. This will not do. In the four
years it is observed that 100000 acres
Of assessable lands have been added.
This was cheap, wild land, that when
assessed with tne more valuable cult
vsted farms must naturally reduce the
general average. Railroads have added
no cheap mileage that can reduce the
average mileage. EOsry good farm Ss
assessed as high n0a0 as in 1887. So
should be every good mile of road.
Next you make an effort to ride out of
your dilemma on the town lot valuation,
producing the following figures:
Number OF town lots, 1887 ............... 697,l72
Number Of town lots, 1891 23l.143
Aggregate value, 1887, S73
Aggregate value, 1891 9l.................. N2O3,9B
Average value per lot, 1SS................S92 .S92 AZ
Average value per lot, 1s9l.................. 60T
What does this mean? Everybody
knows that every boom town In Kansas
laid out into lots all It's surrounding
prairie, so that the number Of lots in 1887
Is almost doubled in 1891. And the boom
being dead, these 534,O29 boom lots,
added since 1887, are almost vslueless.
OF course this vast number of worthless
lots must reduce the general average.
But the gaENe Of the good lot remains as
high as in 1887. So should every good
mile of railroad, whether built before
1887 or after.
And then personal property, you
show. was assessed at $50, FOG. .748 in 1887,
and at only s47, ,4O1, 1877 in 1891. What of
it? We presume there was that much
less personal property, not that any given
class of 1t was ValtIed less for taxation.
Thousands of men had invested all their
moneys and credits in the boom lands
and boom lots, and this changed their
property of 1887 to real property
of 1891.
But to quote from you again:
The increase In the assessed value Of railways
from 1887 to 1891, was s064S,2i9OO. The Increase
In mileage was 2,Gll.l1. The Increase in assess
ment Of all other property was S22,l2i,i ,i0O 81.
We had in 1891, 1858 miles. OF this
mileage 2641 miles were an increase
since 1887, leaving 6,212 as the total
mileage of 1887. That mileage in 1887
was assessed at $41,222605. In the
same proportion the mileage Of 1891
should have been assessed at S5S, ,748, 1876.
So you found 1t too IOsO instead Of too
high when you reduced 1t.
One more quotation and I will leave
yo-:
Those who gtrenuOu'ely insist that the railways
should be assessed upon the same basis as ln
1887 have doubtless forgotten, as compared with |
the basis Of 1887, all other property as whole
has diminished In assessed value over 9Oper
cent, and railroads less than 10 per cent
Holy Mosesl What are we coming TO?