Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-02-05
TAXES In THE STATE.
AN UNDUE SHARE PUT ON
SALTWATER SECTION.
Facts from the Auditors Re-
pOrt-The Oyster-Tax
Oppressive.
WooD's CRoss-RoADs, Va,
January 81. 1893.

COulu oDthiu suo itpOis Va WIZ ~e@~A
OF Public Accounts for the fiscal year
ending September 80. 1892, to present
to the public some facts and figures
which will show conclusively that the
counties interested in the oyster in
dustry have been imposed upon IN put
ting the new oyster law on the people
OF these counties.
The Auditors report ends before the
new oyster law went into operation and
that portion OF his report respecting the
oyster tax is under the old law. am
not writing this article to show that
other portions OF Virginia are not pay
ing sufficient amount OF taxes, for they
are, but / propose to show that the
"oyster" counties are paying more than
other counties, and this new oyster law
will make the burthen Of taxation so
great that our people can't stand it. and
unless some notifications are made our
section will be almost ruined.
OFFICIAL FIGURES.
Let me give some facts and figures
from the Auditors report. The popu-
lation Of Virginia is 1855, $3.50. The
total amount Of captation taxes, taxes
on real and personal property, and all
licenses is S2,6O5, 48j; the average per
capita is SI.57. Number OF acres Tex
elusive of town and city lots in Virginia
amount to 26,15j,0 the assessed
value of lands and buildings mot in
Guiding town and city LOTS amount to
S167, 100, 255-making average price per
acre at S6.41.
] will give in Table /. list OF counties
in which the oyster industry is specially
carried on. In Table III. l will give list
OF counties in other portions of the State.
TABLE I.-Accomac, Elizabeth City,
Gloucester, Isle of Wight, Lancaster,
Mathews, Middlesex, Nansemond, Nor
folk. Northampton, Princess Anne, War
wick. and York.
TABLE II.-Amherst, Grayson, Wise,
Bath, Scott, Franklin, Russell, Bland,
Albemarle. Patrick, Smyth, Rock5ridge,
and Nottoway.
OUR SHARE OF TAXATION.
The following shows the average price
per acre in each county in Table I.-viz.,
Accomac, s13. % Elizabeth City, $27.75 ;
Gloucester, $40; Isle OF Wight, SG.97 ;
Mathews, $40 Middlesex, S6.39 Nanse-
mond, $500 Norfolk, 1913; North
ampton, 1921 ; Princess Anne. $3.50
Warwick, Sl3.41, and York, S7.0l, max
ing average price per acre IN said coun'
ties at 5000.
The following shows the average price
per acre in each countyin Table ll.-vlz.,
Amherst, S5.12; Grayson, s2.l9; Wise,
49, Bath, S1.85; Scott, S2.63 Frank
lin, $3.50 Russell, SO SO Bland, Sl.76 ;
Albemarle, $500; Patrick, 1929 ;
Smyth. $7.4l Rockbridge, 1921, and
Nottoway, 1898. making average price
per acre in said counties at $3.S So.
The population of the counties in Ia
bic |. is 2l9.4 43 the popu a.ion of the
counties in Table IL. is 20S.9 Total
amount of tax, including capitation tax,
tax on realty and personally and licenses
in counties in Table i. Is S437 ,252.60 /;
total amount of tax, including capita
ton tax, tax on realty and personally
and licenses IL counties in Table III. is
Sl96, 1872. 43.
Amount paid per capita in counties
in Table l.. Sl.99; amount paid per
capita in counties i'll Table H., 80 cents.
Criminal expenses in counties IN Ia
BILE l., S27, 500. "a criminal expenses ID
counties in Table H., S43, 8S0.32.
Criminal expenses per capita in coun-
ties in Table l., II cents criminal ex-
penses per capita in counties in Table
H., Il cents.
TAXED TWICE.
The argument is used that our lands
in Tidewater are assessed as much as
they are because of our water facilities,
nearness 10 oysters, natural rocks and
grounds. IT'S true. Then we
are taxed once for these oyster ddudn-
tages. We pay an enormous special
oyster tax. Taxed tUice for the same
oyster advantages. Double t0rdtiOn.
Again, the lands in counties named in
Table /. are not valuable for sgricultu-
raj purposes, nor have they any mine
rails or coal-felds, while the lands
in counties named in Table ii.
are noted for agricultural purposes
or for mineral and coal, and no extra tax
imposed on those counties, for these
advantages. In the past
few wears we have had booms in Vir-
ginia on account of mineral and coal.
Many persons OF small means have
massed immense fortunes. In the Audi
tors report Virginia receives as "in-
come tax only S5i, l54.44. The "mine-
raj productions assessed for taxation In
Virginia are valued at S234,96G. The
planted oysters and water crafts as
sessed for taxation in Virginia are valued
at S946, 632.
AN UNJUST BURDEN.
From the above facts and figures taken
from the Auditors report, we must come
to the conclusion that the people in
Tidewater pay more taxes, more licenses,
and real and personal property assessed
higher than any portion of the State
We have borne this burthen without a
murmur. We have had the advantages
of the water, and we have paid pretty
dearly for them. We have done all we
could to lessen the burthen of taxa
ton in other sections. Tidewater Vir-
einia has never asked nor desired to see
tobacco, wheat, coal, and minerals taxed
specially. We believe it wrong IN prin-
ciple to levy such a tax. Do the oyster
grounds and natural rocks belong to
Virginia? If 80, we are part and par
Gel of Virginia Should Oc be taxed spe-
ciaUy for the privilege Of using our own
property? We are not only paying spe-
cial taxes, but paying heavy taxes under
the general revenue law for the privi-
lege.
THE OYSTER INDUSTRY.
So much for cur condition under the
old oyster law. 1.-The powers that be =
are looking with marked pleasure and
delight on the revenue received and to
be received from the "pet scheme
known as the "oyster industry" Our
people are law-loving and law-abiding.
and they are paying the large amount OF
revenue under the netO Tar. They are
the sufferers the Treasury receives the
money. No one can doubt that taxes in
Virginia are just as high as We can stand,
yet it is fact under the new oyster law
taxes from the oyster counties will be IN