The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1897-08-19

county (Alamance) returned for taxa
ton in 1893, 234 900 acres, in 1894,
23l 900 acres. in 1895, 235, 900 acres,
In 1896, 265, 900 acres. thus showing
a difference between one year and an
other. during the past four years Of
"a 600 acres in that county. The re-
turns as a whole show an increased
average of taxable land in that
county. We believe that there has
been some legislation effscting the
boundaries Of this county and Chat
ham county If the effect was TO
increase the area ssof Alamance, it is
to be expected that there would be
an increase in the number of acres
returned for taxation. But an in
crease in Alamance would naturally
cause decrease in Chatham's av-
erage, and we would expect Chat
ham to show q decrease in subse-
quent reports. The fact is, how
ever, that Chatham also reports an
increase during the past four years
of from four to six thousand acres,
and instead Of being able to account
for the increase in Alamance on ac-
count of change Ia boundary lines,
if there was any, we find an aggra-
waited case Of imperfectlon in our
system of listing, or an emphasis of
something like carelessness or incom.
potency among those who made up
the first returns and reported them
to the county officials.
Another county (Cumberland), re-
turned in 1893, sos, 900 acres; in 1894,
492 900 acres; in 1895, 484, 900 acres
and in 1896, 4S3 900 acres, showing a
difference in one year and another
during the past four years Of 81, 900
acres. But this difference was a de-
crease. Similar instances could be
cited from nearly every county, but
these will serve to illustrate the fact
that something in our listing needs
looking after. Only one county
| (TyrrelD in the State, during the
past four years, has returned uni
form number of acres of land for
taxation every year. There have
been some greater difference than
those above noted. For instance,
one county (Buncombe) returned
about 4O, 900 acres of land less in 1896
than in 1898. Another county (Guil-
ford) returned 10000 more in 1896
than in 1893, so that the loss in the
one county and the gain in another
offset each other and had no effect
in changing the aggregate number
of acres for 1896. If the county
which gained made a correct report,
and the return Of 1893 for the coun-
| O.
there ought to have been a net gain
from these two counties Of 40 600
acres.
,, The most remarkable difference in
the number of acres returned during
: the past four years, is shown by 8
, western county henderson,; the
number returned in 1893 being
1872, 900 acres, in 1894. 24O, 900 acres
in 1895, 100000 acres, and in 1896
260 900 acres. While this county
; shows a gain of $4,000 acres in fou1
, years, it has no material effect or
!, the aggregate number of acres ol
land returned, for losses in othel
counties show an aggregate decrease
of more than 100000 acres
of land listed between the years
,, of 1898 and 1896. If for th'
, year 1897, each county woult
,, return as large a number of acres a:
, it has ever returned in any one yea
for the past five or six years, th'
: grand aggregate would unquestiona
! bly, reach close to the thirty million
mark, and all possible increase il
quantity may be needed to counter
act a possible decrease in valuation.
If such irregularities as are here
pointed out can occur under our ex
. listing system with property that i
: always visible and stationary
and with records that ought to maxi
il easy to account for any chang
, involving a decrease or increase, i.
!, it not reasonble to suppose in faci
= are we not driven to think, if no
. to know, that much greater irregu
larlties can occur and will occur wit
. property that is not visible-sucl
: property as franchises, stocks
mortgages, notes, money and othe
q personal property.
Let US look now for awhile at re
!, ports and facts concerning the list
. ing and return of this intangible G
invisible property, including none
!, on hand, solvent credits, stocks an
!. stock incorporated companies, et'
!, The last report of the State Trea'
= urer shows that the banking inst
?, tutions Of the State report ban
- stock to the amount of S., ,436, ,97p
~ Under the provisions of the law th
:. taxes due the State direct on ban
y stock are paid by the banks
u the Treasurer, and the Treasurer r
Il Il ports having received taxes on Il
- amount of stock above name'
70 While the banks report the stock f
. State taxation, the law requires tt
- individual stockholder to list b
- - stock in the county in which he r
~ sides for county taxation. The e
~ tire amount of stock listed in Il
~ rs counties by individual stockholder
III according to the last Auditors +
- port, amounted to So, ,OOS. .912 90.
40 thus appears that there is dlffe
IS ence of $3,24S, ,O3S.0O between t
= amount of bank stock on which t
- State tax was paid for 1896, and Il
io amount on which county tax "
IS paid. This forces the conclusi'
ue that there has been either some gre
os irregularity in listing of stock by t
"a individual stockholders, or that net
uu lv two-thirds of the stock IN Nor
,u ~ Carolina banks is held by reslder
tof other States. This latter conc
sion am not ready to admit.
~ ~ the present rate of taxation
uis counties lose annually. by this d
,n ,,a crepancy in listing. $lS.898. 90; p
~. vided of course that all the ba
al stock is held by residents of the St'
&c 1t is quite certain that some is he
~ by noa.residents, but nothing Ii
the amount between that report
| l. <hok 1sofn6 4