Kansas City daily journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1892-1897, 1895-04-16
JUST ONE OF TWO THINGS.
OFFICIALS OF KANSAS COUNTIES CON
fRONTED ny A DILEMMA.
They Must Lower tho Railroad Assessment
or Advance That of other Property
In the County supreme
Court Decision.

Topeka. kas., April i5-(special) The at
torney generals Office is flooded with letters
from county clerks. trcasurers and COM
mssioners asking what is to he done In the
matter OF railroad assessments and tax
collections under the decision made Ivy the
supreme court at It's last term. The syi-
lahus OF the decision In question reads as
follows:
In 1893 the property Of the Chicago. Bur
lingt1n & quincy Railroad Company. in
Atchison county. was assessed by the state
board Of railroad assessors at its true and
actual value. The city and township as
SCISSORS OF that county. upon an agreement
entered into between themselves. assessed
IN 1898, all OF the other property OF the
eo91htE e,o1h al 70 per sent OF H. uue NaiHie, ,i
railroad properly. was taxed IN 1898 upon
such - per cent assessment subsequent
county treasurer OF Atchison county the
full amount of all OF the state taxes which
VIZ l.N.,'I On l's properly any a'so a IN
equal to that assessed on other property OF
the county. and then brought its action TO
ing the remainder.
Held that the railroad company is en-
titled to an injunction to restrain the coll
lection OF the Illegal excess.
The tremendous force OF this decision will
be readily understood when it Is stated
that every other county IN the state, as
well as Atchison. has pursued the Same
system Of taxation. 1t IS not always ut =
assessed. as probably most Of the counties
have fixed upon about S3 per cent but II
Is a fact that none Of the counties has
made an assessment at the fun true value.
The county assessors have n fashion of
meeting in their several counties and fix
Ing upon basis of valuation, and SO IL
comes that the assessment is not uniform
over the entire state
1t Will readily be seen. then that under
the supreme court decision. every county in
the state is forced 10 do one of two things.
1t must lower the railroad tax collection
10 the same basis that governs the valua
zion OF local property. or else raise the
valuation of local property to an equality
made by the state board OF railroad as
SCISSORS at presumably the fun value of the
property. Either course is fraught with
The levy for state taxes Is made by the
legislature, at tn" rat" of ~ mills. This
levy was made on the presumption that
the counties would assess property NJ 30
per cent OF Its true value. II the local
property should be raised in valuation to
meet the full value system which is used
IN taxes from the people about s., 100000 or
three times the amount which is needed
to conduct the affairs of the state. ON the
other hand. II the counties do not In
roads only pay into the several TREASURES
only % or SS per cent Of TIE tax levied
against them, as this decision warrants
them in doing, It win decrease the state
revenues to the amount of the tax on
about 10000 600, while II would almost
suit in the ruination Of many Of the West
the railroad tax for the payment of run
ming expenses.
The attorney general has not yet pre-
pared an answer to his voluminous cor
respondence on this subject. but 1t is likely
that he will refer the matter back to the
various county officers with the brief
very serious dilemma, one of which they
will be compelled to accept.