Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1895-01-31

STATE OF MISSOURI,
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
JEFFERSON CITY, Jan. q, 1895.
To the House Of Representatives.:
The following resolution, adopted by the
house Of representatives, has been transmitted
to me:
the Thirty-eight general assembly:
THAT the governor. as the principal member
his earliest convenience To inform this house
why the state board Of equalization. when they
found it necessary to increase the taxable
wealth of the state, placed an additional value
of $50 100000 upon the farm property Of the
state, instead of increasing the taxable wealth
of the railroads until railroad property shall
bear its equitable share of taxation. directed
to do by the resolution passed by the house of
representatives of the Thlrty-seventh general
assembly and to be found at page $40 OF the
House Journal"
The most significant feature of this resolu-
tion is the assertion that the state board OF
equalization at its last meeting placed an adj
dtional value of 365 900 600 upon the farm prop
erty of the state" Acting upon misinforma-
ton, the house has been unwittingly misled
into making a statement which is without
foundation in fact, and. proceeding from that
premise, has been betrayed into an unwar-
ranted criticism of the state officials.
1t is not true that the state board
of equalization at its last meeting
placed an additional value of s65,-
tOO, 90 upon the farm property of thes state. Nor
was any such thing done at all. The resoIu-
in fact. In view of that 1 might, with perfect
propriety and without the least discourtesy.
dismiss the matter without further conSidera-
ton: but inaSmuch as it has been brought to
the attention of your honorable body, it may
nent to the subject, which may prove both use
full and interesting.
The aggregate assessment of real and per-
sonal property made in 1898 amounted to ss54.-
353. sos That was exclusive OF such railroad.
bridge and telegraph property as is assessed by
the state board. and also OF certain property
belonging to merchants and manufacturers. as
sesSed under special statutes. According to
the abstracts of the assessors books for the
year 1894, the real and personal properties Of
the state were assessed at 1887, 30 $40. That
was an increase made by the assessors over the
ment for 1894 further increased by the
state board of equalization S37.Ol6.712. Adding
the increase by the state board to that made by
the assessors, it will be seen that the final
sessment of real ana personal property for 1894
was increased over that OF 1898 by 22i9
That embraces the assessment upon real estate
in both town and country. including wild or
uncultivated lands, and all descriptions of per-
sonal property with the exceptions above al
or the sss 9s5 ,5s7 increase made in 1894 by the
local assessors, 9,160.145 fell upon three mu-
inequalities, namely, St. Louis city and St.
Louis and Jackson counties, leaving only
So 76, 1872 OF that increase to be distributed
among all the other cities. towns and coun-
ties of the state. OF the S31,Ol67l2 increase
made in 1894 by the state board of equalization,
,,S.tS
gardens. farm and wild lands OF the remain
der. S50 As fell upon city and town lots. and
personal property, which is divided between
town and country, from the discussion, 1t VIII
be seen that the additional value placed upon
farm or acre property by the state board of
equalization. instead of being s65000,OOO, was
| about $4,000. 600.
In this connection it is we'll to note the i'm
portant and interesting fact that the increase
| made in 1894 in the assessed value of real es-
tate in the two cities of St. Louis and Kansas
hot Ip1l RI hn IrorD $50
| made for that year on all the balance OF the
| real estate in all the cities, towns and counties
| of the state BY many it is contended that city
real estate is assessed relatively much higher
| than acre property. This do not admit. and
| yet am not prepared with the data at hand
desire of the state board to treat all alike.
| and they have endeavored to secure as great
equality as the nature OF the case would adj
| nit The aggregate amount Of taxes paid up
on city and town lots is much larger than that
| paid upon acre property The total assessed
1894 amounted to $500 s2O,O4s, while that placed
| upon city and town lots was 1881. 100000. The
excess of the assessment on city and town
realty over acre property was $50. 7SO.o61.
| The state tax levied in 1894 on all real estate
amounted to Sl.759.579 OF this tax there was
| levied upon acre property in round numbers
the sum of s767 900, and the remainder OF nearly
| 81 100000 was levied upon city and town lots.
The aggregate tax imposed upon city and town
realty was about 30 per cent greater than that
| collected from acre property. 1t is undeniably
true that a much larger total revenue is derived
from city real estate than from country real
estate; but am nor prepared on that account
| to admit that the assessed value Of city prop
erty is relatively higher than in the country
| Notwithstanding there may seem to be some
| apparent reason for that contention.
| CAUSE OF THE INCREASE.
| The increases made by the state board re-
| suited inevitably from the effort to equaliZe
| valuations between the several counties of the
| state 1t is the business of the board to equal
| ize assessments not between individuals or the
| subdivisions of counties, but between the coun-
| ties themselves. 1t was created for that pur-
| poeS- Its very name indicates the purpose fol
| which it wss established. Sec. 1914 OF the Re-
| vised Statutes expressly requires the state
| BOARD to equalize valuations between counties
| first by adding to the valuation of the property
| in each county which may believe to be below
its true value in money such per centum as will
| raise it to its true value; and, secondly, by de-
| Quoting from the valuation in each county
| which they believe to be above the real value
| in money. such per centum as will reduce the
| same to it's true value. If the property in each
| county is to bear its just proportion of the
| common burden. then equalization in assess
| mentS is absolutely essential; and If the mem
| beers of the state board are to observe theil
| obligations to enforce the law. they can not es
| cape the duty of making honest effort tc
| BILE.
to the state board. disclosed the grOSseSt in
| CAPABILITIES, and if they had been permitted Il
| stand, great injustice would have eventuatet
| to many counties and the board been derelic
| in the discharge of plain and positive duty.
| will give several examples by way of ilIustra-
| ton. Farm or acre property In Atchison coun
| ty, in the northwestern part of the state was
valued by the assessor at SLIGO per acre, while
1 Was as assessed u at sas7. Every member o
| the house familiar with those counties
| must know that the lands of Atchison county
| should not be assessed at 81 per acre above
| those of Nodaway. Both are splendid counties
| but venture the opinion that the real estate
| of Nodaway is at least as valuable as that o.
| Atchison but the lands of Atchison were as
| sessed about - per cent. higher than those o.
| Nodaway. Here. then was manifest Unequal
| ity. But to secure equality. it was necessary
| either to lower the valuation of one or raise
| that of the other. CT to do both
| 1t was in evidence before the board from
| well-informed citizens of AtchiSon county, en-
| bracing county officials. that the lands of tina
| county we're not assessed above but far below
| their real value. There was no reason there
| fore for reducing the valuation OF the assessor
| Accordingly the board left Atchison county I'm
| changed and added 20 per cent. to the valua
| ton placed upon the lands OF Nodaway by thu
| assessor of that county. This resulted is rails
| ing the Nodaway lands TO Sll24 per acre, leav
ing those of AtchlSon at Sll:O- was not tina
increase proper:
| For a similar illustration in the southwest
| ern section Of the state, will instance th'
| counti. s of Barton and Vernon. The assessor
of Barton county valued the lands OF that coun
| ty at 1888 per acre. while those OF Vernon were
are But every Southwestern member know:
| that the money value of the lands of Vernon
| county is greater than that of those in Barton
| Accordingly 20 per cent. was added to the loca
| valuation of the Vernon county lands. thereby
| increasing the assessment to ssGs per acre
| which is only 40 cents per acre more than thu
| value placed on the realty Of Barton county
| was not that increase proper:
| In central Missouri will refer, for example
| tn the counties of Livingston and Charlton
| The assessor of Livingston county valued thu
| lands of that county at 1886 per acre. while il
| Charlton they were valued at 1927. The boart
| added 20 per cent to the Charlton valuation
| thereby raising their lands to S7.52 per acre
| which leaves them 4 cents per acre under tn
| valuation of Livingston. Was not tina: increas
| proper: