The age-herald., 1899-01-22

 appealed, and afterward compromised with
 the company, they agreeing to a raise of $200,000 and paying tax on the same direct to
 the state treasurer In 1898 1t was given in at S334,034, and raised to S450,000 by the court.
 The testimony shows that some time prior
 to the 17th of March, 1898, MT. James A. AL len, of Birmingham, was appointed as an appraiser by the county commissioners, and
 was sworn to appraise the property (real
 estate) within the city limits ofBirmingham
 in fair, equitable manner as prescribed in
 the law to appraise property at its market value. In conjunction with MT. Allen, Mr. J. T. Garretson had been appointed by the
 mayor and board of aldermen in behalf of
 the city for the same purpose. MT. E. J. McCrossin was appointed by the tax com | missioner, MT. H. L.. Badham, to represent him. It was agreed that McCrossin would have no say as to the valuation or said property. The work of appraising was com peted some time in June. MT. Allen re- ceived $500 compensation from the county for his work and MT. Garretson the same amount from the city. When the work was completed it was found that tho raises on the whole city property was about 3D. O,OOO. This raise was made by the paid
 employees of the county and city. The tax commissioner, H. l.. Badham, was entirely
 satisfied with the raise, and made no pro-
 posal to the board of commissioners above the amount. The proof shows that the commissioners did not accept the appraise- ment of their sworn employe, MT. Allen, and in the investigation of his work at any time have him before them. They began the work of cutting down his appraisement until the amount was reduced from S3590.- 900 to about $S0O,000. Seeing the gross in-
 justice which would arise from their action,
 MT. Badham prepared two lists, one for private individuals and the other embracing corporations, asking for raises in valua- tions. The court examined the same, pass ed a resolution to docket the same and is- sue citations to property owners to appear and show cause why the valuations of their property should not be increased. The evil dence shows that the letter ''D'' was mark ed opposite names of the corporations on the list, which indicated that the cases were to be docketed. The work of docketing the cases began by commencing with the cases of private individuals At the August term
 of the court a motion was introduced to re- consider the former action of the court in requiring these lists to be docketed. Con- siderable argument made before the court by E. H. Cabaniss. attorney for the commissioner, and MT James D. Webb, at torney for some of the corporatio whose 1 assessments were sought to be raised. The
 motion to reconsider was made by Commis- sioner Morrow, and was supported by hin- self and Commissioner Lacey. When the vote was taken it was tie. Judge Porter, the probate judge was called in, and upon an examination it was discovered that their employed clerk, MT. Tarrant, had failed to
 enter the cases against the corporations the docket Judge Porter decided that as the cases against these corporations did not appear on the docket there was nothing
 to reconsider, and the motion to reconsider
 the former action of the court was not in order. The court adjourned. The evidence
 shows that MT Badham then addressed the following communication to the court: Commissioners Court of Jefferson Coun- ty-
 "Gentlemen: I agree that you shall settle with the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad
 company, Sloss Iron and Steeel company,
 Woodward Iron company. Pioneer Mining and Manufacturing company and the Bir-
 mingham Rolling Mill company in the mat
 ter of the alleged undervaluation of their
 property, and that no appeal shall be taken from your decision in any of the said cases,
 provided that the cases against all H)rpo- rations shall be docketed at once and mo-
 tices issued to them in accordance with law. (Signed) H. l.. BADHAM, County Tax Commissioner" From the evidence this letter came into the possession of Commissioners Morrow and Lacey, and was not seen by the other commissioners. Anyway, Messrs. Young and Crook testify that they knew of no such proposition at the time, the latter tes- tifying that he was in favor of docketing all cases presented and allowing both corpora tions and private individuals to stand or fall upon their merit.
 Messrs Morrow and Lacey both testify that they acceded to the agreement, and the cases were docketed. Many of the cases were tried, but in a very few in- stances did the court make any raises ex- cept where sch raises were agreed upon between the representatives of the state and the defendants. The final result shows, however, that including back taxes on ac- count of solvent credits of some of the cor porations the increased valuations over the preceding year were in the neighborhood of $3, O0O
 I find from the evidence that pretty much the same condition oft affairs existed in re- lation to the valuations of the property in the town of Bessemer. MT. E. l.. Mitchell was appointed by MT. Badham, In connec- ton with MT. H. L. Long, who was appoint ed by the authorities of Bessemer to equal
 ize the valuation of property in that town. The valuations were increased by these gen. tlemen to about $500 900 above the amount rendered by the tax assessor. <sThe com- missioners refused all raises& &except about 0OOO The evidence shows that the court refused to cite and raise number or peo- pie who were willing for their property to be raised, and that the Bessemer Land and Improvement company, in giving in
 their property to the assessor placed the value of their vacant lots at from $10 to $2O each, while nearly every one else as- | sessed theirs at from $75 to $500 each. From an examination of the deed record in the probate office I ascertained the fact that some of the identical lots given in at $20 have within the past few months been sold at prices from s2OO to $500 each, and one 1 suburban lot assessed at $10 was sold for
 s1OO cash The court refused to adopt the proposed raises of the appraisers. When questioned in regard to their ac- tions in these tax matters, MT. Morrow de- clined to answer questions in reference thereto MT. Lacey simply stated that the
 corporations outswore MT. Badham, and he ! went according to the testimony. Messrs. l Crook and Young seem to have been in the 1 minority, and could not throw much light i upon the subject. Their testimony accom- panies this report.
 1 I noticed an order on the docket reducing | the assessment of the First National Bank | of Birmingham from 900 to s2000OO It l seems that the bank had given in their as-