The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1898-07-09
Assessed Valuation of Telephone
Lines in Kansas
Greatly Reduced by Board Of
Railroad Assessors.
LOWERED ONE-HALF
In Shawnee County and Com
missiOners are DispIeased.
Decisions Handed Down by the
Supreme Court.

he new IuelnOu OI having the OOdA0
- railroad assessors assess the tele-
phones will meet the approval of the
telephone companies in Kansas if all
fare as well as the Missouri, Kansas &
Texas Telephone Co did in Topeka.
The law was passed by the last Pop
ulist legislature and it was supposed to
be for the purpose of equalizing mat
ters so that townships which the long
distance lines passed through should
get a proportion of the taxes.
If that was the purpose of the law it
seems that some one made a serious
mistake in and around Topeka. There
were for many years complaints that
the telephone company property was
assessed too low in Topeka and the
complaints finally eliminated two
years ago in Deputy City Assessor 0.
K. Swayze raising the valuation from
$4,000 to 1000. He made a careful
computation based upon maps of the
line, the number of miles of wire and
the number of instruments in use.
There was a good sized roar from
the officials of the telephone company
as the result Of the action of the dep
uty and the board of county commits
sioners finally reduced the valuation to
$4,000 and the plant paid taxes upon
The board of railroad commissioners
gave out that they would try to follow
the figures of the county assessors in
when the figures were sent to County
Clerk Wright by the state auditor,
there was great surprise and some in
dignatiOn expressed.
It was found from the figures that
the valuation of the telephone plant in
Topeka was reduced to LOO. 1t is a
long distance from $4,000 to 81, 700 but
the board of railroad commissioners
seemed perfectly willing to take the
slide.
It is claimed that the amount was
the county but an examination of the
figures shows that the total valuation
of the plant and all the long distance
lines in the county is placed at but
Sc, 400
County Commissioner T. P. Rodgers
said in discussing the reduction: 1T is
nothing less than an outrage on the
city of Topeka. I can not imagine what
the board meant
Deputy County Clerk o. K. Swayze
said: Il made a very careful canvass
of the situation when placed Valua-
ton of 81, goo on the telephone plant.
took the trouble to follow up every line
of wire and the map filed with my re-
port showed exactly of what the plant
consists. The president of the company
refused to give me any data upon which
to work and for that reason I made a
personal investigation. The board of
county commissioners afterward re-
duced the valuation somewhat and the
figures as returned by me were cut to
$12, 900, which was lower than it should
this board of railroad commissioners
should take it into their hands to make
such a sweeping reduction. The plant
has not deteriOrated that any one
knows of. If that is the way the new
law is going to work I think that the
sooner we are rid of it the better"
, It is not known whether other cities
Jared the same as Topeka because the
comparative figures can not be secured
at the state house
Supreme Court Opinions.
The state supreme court has handed
down the following decisions:
DOSTER, c. J.
r. NJ. Manley, executor, etc, VS.. NJ. F.
Iarkins ct al. Error from Atchison
county; affirmed.
f. B. Crissey VS.. The Interstate Loan
! & Trust Co. Error from Shawnee coun-
ty: reversed.
State of Kansas VS.. Wilhelm Dietz.
Appeal from WyandOtte county; af-
firmed.
The State of Kansas VS.. Perry Nc
Neil. Appeal from Franklin county; af-
firmed.
JOHNSTON, ].
The Standard Life and Accident In
surance Co. VS.. Eve Davis Error from
/ Bourbon county; affirmed.
Geo. E. Fernald VS.. The Highland
Hall Co. Error from Cowley county;
Austin S. Ranney VS.. The Highland
Hall Co Error from Cowley county;
! reversed.
ct al. Error from Lyon county; al
frmed.
| X S Smith VS.. Jackson Cunningham
/ ct al Error from Elk county; reversed.
S. Sleeper VS.. S. Norris. Error from
( Pawnee county; reversed.
NJ. H. MOtsinger ct al. vs.. Ludwick
F. Miller. Error from Decatur county;
+ state of Kansas VS.. Anna Beuere-
man. Appeal from Douglas county; re-
Versed.
Carrie O. Getty VS.. Arthur Larkins
ct al. Error from Ellsworth county;
! reversed.
H. b. Cronkheit ct al. VS. Leah V.
Buchanan. administrators. ct al. Error
from Ottawa, county; affirmed.
L. s MCFARLAND, as next friend, etc,
VS.. Township of Emporia. Error from
Lyon county; affirmed.
The State of Kansas VS.. Patrick
! O'Shea. Appeal from Sedgwick county;
! reversed.
Edwin J. Jaquins VS.. A. B. Gilbert ct
al. Error from Sumner county; affirm
ed.
7. J. Lacy vs.. S. H Mann ct al. Err
ror from Greenwood county; affirmed.
Farmers National Bank VS.. Geo W.
Robinson, receiver, etc, ct al Error
from GOwley county; affirmed.
Hattie Williams VS.. The A, T. & S.
F. R r. Co. Error from Reno county;
reversed
Lancashire Insurance Co. VS.. W. F.
BOardman- Error from SedgWick cOun-
ty; affirmed.
W. S. AIeserve, guardian, etc. VS.. Jas
Hansford. Error from WyandOtte cOun-
ty; affirmed
A L. Emerson VS.. The South Fork
Irrigation and Improvement Co. Error
from Cheyenne county; affirmed.
The Milford Savings Bank VS.. Ed
ward JOSlyn- Error from Harvey cOun-
ty; affirmed.
Chas. S. Brady VS.. Bryan Foley, guar
dian Error from Marshall county; al
firmed.
Blue RAPIDS Opera House Co VS.