The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1897-07-27

or incompetency among those who made
up the first returns and reported them
to h county officials.
Another county (Cumberland), re-
turned In 1888, sos, 900 acres; In "a, 49,
600 acres: in '95, 4S4. 900 acres, and in '96
483, 900 acres, showing a difference In one
yea and another during the past four
years. Of 5000. acres. But his differ
ence was a decrease. Similar instances
could be cited from nearly every county
but these will serve to illustrate the
fact that something in our listing sys-
tenn needs looking after. Only one
county (TyrrelD in the state. during
the past our years has returned a uni
from number Of acres for taxation
every year. There ave been some
greater differences than those above
noted. For instance. n county tBun-
combe), returned about 400 300 acres Of
land less in 1886 than In 1898. Another
county (Guilford), returned about 49,
600 more in SO than in '93, so that the
loss in the, one county and the gain in
another offset each other and had no
effect in changing h aggregate num-
Der of acres for 1896. II the county
which gained made a correct report,
and the return of '93 for the county
which lost for SO was correct, there
ought to have been a net gain for those
two counties OF 10000 acres.
The most remarkable difference in the
nun Der Of acres during the past four
years is shown by a western county
(Henderson); the number returned in
1893 being 1872, 900 acres; in "a, 240,0 900
acres; in '95, 2O2, 900 acres, and in sc,
260, 900 acres. While this county shows
a gain Of $1,000 acres in four years. it
has had no material effect on the ag-
gregate umb of acres Of land re-
turned, for losses in other counties
show a decrease Of more than 200, 900
acres of land between the years OF '93
and SO.
IL. for the year 1897, each county
would retur as large a number of
acres as it has ever returned in any
one year for the past five or six years,
the grand aggregate would unQues-
tionably reach close to thirty millions Or
more, and all possible increase in guam
ti:y may be needed to counterfeit a
possible decrease in valuation.
If such Irregularities as I have point
ed out can occur under Our existing
system. with property that is always
visible m stationary,a and with records
that ought to make it easy to account
for Any change involving a decrease Or
increase, is it not reasonable to sup
pOse-in fact are we not driven to
think, If not to know, that much grea-
er irregularities can occur and will oc-
cur with property that is not visible
such property as franchises, stocks,
bonds, mortgages, notes, money and
other personal property.
LISTING OF PERSONAL PROP
ERTY.
Let us look for awhile at reports and
facts concerning the listing and return
of this Intangible or invisible prop
ov~fyy inol,,6inr ponnov on hand cN1yyant
credits, stocks and stock in incorpor-
ated companies, etc. The last report
of the state treasurer shows that the
banking institutions of the state report
bank stock to the amount of $5,436, 000.
Under the provisions Of the law the
axes due the state direct on bank
stock are paid by the banks to the
treasurer, Inc the treasurer reports
having received taxes on the amount
Of stock above named. While the banks
report the stock for state taxation, the
law requires the individual stockhold-
err to list his stock in the county in
which he resides for county taxation.
The entire amount of stock listed in the
counties by individual stockholders,
according to the last auditors report,
amounted to $2,00S, 912. 1t thus appears
that there is a difference Of 3,248,0 3S
between the mount Of bank stock on
which state tax was paid for 1896, and
the o on which county tax vas
paid. This forces the conclusion that
there has been either some great irreg-
ularity in listing of stock by Individual
stockholders, or that nearly twO-thirds
of the stock in North Carolina banks
is held by residents of other states.
This latter conclusion I am not ready
to admit. At the present rate Of taxa
ton the counties lose annually, by this
discrepancy in listing $18,S9S; provid-
ed, of course, that all the bank stock
is held by residents Of the state. It is
quite certain that some is held by nom
residents, but nothing like the amount
between that reported by the banks
and that listed for taxation in the
counties.
Another Kind of intangible or invisi-
BILE property, if these terms may be
properly applied tomoney, solvent cred
it's, etc., is Money on Hand or on De-
pOsit." A special column is made for
this species of property in the state
reports of property returned for taxa
ton, in addition to a column for "Sol-
vent Credits" and a column for "Stock
in Incorporated Companies" Unless
the item of Money on Hand or on De-
pOsit," has been very much mixed with
other kinds of property, there is an
immense discrepancy in the reports of
what exists in the state and what is
llSlcd lOI ldAdt1Ou. OI lIlStdIC0, Tie
banks alone reported in 1896 that their
deposits aggregated $40, 064,47 This,
of course, does not include any moneys
that might have been in the possession
of the tax payers and not in the banks,
and ordinarily it would seem that any
thing like a correct report Of Money
on Hand or on Deposit" should ap-
prOximate the amount reported as be-
ing held by the banks. But in the col
umn for Money on Hand or on De-
posit," in the auditors report for 1896,
the total amount listed is shown to be
only $4,124,00. Here another conclusion
is forced, that there is an irregularity
in the return of money on hand, or
that considerably more than one-half
Of the money on deposit in the banks
of this state is owned and held by nom
residents: for the difference between
the amount reported on han and in
the banks, and the amount listed for
Taxation iS * 900 000 Ar the prosopf