People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1895-03-21

ilege to violate by commoa consent
any lega! enactment governing them.
If they can say 1870 shall be the
basis of assessment, they can say
that 5To shall be the basis, or l96 or
may even refuse to make assessment,
for they assume themselves to be a
body Of officials superior to the law
OF our commonwealth. So well IN.
derstood is this law that a common
practice among assessors in their
final sworn statement is to state that
they have violated the law and have
placed a valuation on property for
which the law has made no provision
(See assessors return statement, I'm.
der oath at county clerks ofice).
Again, $50 in Sumner county may
be and often is quite different per
cent in other. The same is true even
of townships in the same county,
thus boards of equalization are a
necessity to correct gross abuses.
All inequalities Of assessment are
due to assumed per cent valuation
instead of cash or real valuation,
making Of course due allowance for
individual judgment.
This per cent confusion is as un-
called for as it is unjust, making our
assessments scarcely better than a
good decent guess. The exemption
5000 which is legal cannot exempt
5000 unless by pious perjury. If
5000 is not enough and 5000 is the
correct amount | am sure | have no
objections, and if left to my personal
desire in the matter, l should not
stop even at $500; but until it is
changed by law, | shall insist that no
association Of township, aided by
county, officials can set it aside.
This one-third valuation does not
make our taxes only one.third as
some seem TO think. We have a
certain amount Of money to raise
and it must be raised irregardless OF
valuation placed at any per cent.
What more just valuation can we
place upon any property than cash
value. Certainly, it is a common
sense view we take of it in all our
business transactions. Why depart
from it in this matter2 Simply we
have been educated against our in
terest. Let US take an example and
see if the poor man of family is
benefited. Suppose Wellington's
cash valuation to be 100000 if as.
sessed at third valuation, you get
but 100000. Suppose also, that
her school buildings must be repair
ed after a damaging cyclone or be
over crowded and aportion of school
children excluded from school. or
less months from want offunds. The
law says a certain per cent and you
cannot 60 beyond it. Don't you
think you can raise larger school
fund from the 100000 than from the
100000?
Now honestly, ifyou was Santa
Fe railroad banker, or a million
aire, you would say by all means,
give US the third valuation would
you not1 You see it would save you
from paying school money enough,
perhaps to send your children to
school some where where cyclones
were more kindly. No, it does not
favor the rich when you place a cash
valuation on property but the poor
and the poorer the greater benefit
he derives. The same rule will ap-
ply to roads and bridges.
My dear friend, if the tables were
turned and the wealthy were benefit
ed and the poor Inconvenience by
one third valuation they would send
to the penitentiary the first assessor
who dared under oath to say that he
and his associates had set up stand
ard of valuation of their own, but as
the one-third valuation is ofvast i'm
portance to them often, they wink at
our blindness and can afford to pay
for long articles to keep US so. By
all means give US the cash valuation
in all assessments and there will be
less loop holes for evading. Abr.