Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1899-11-23


the committee was extended to / o'clock
p. M, to which hour, on motion of Mr.,
Taylor, the board took recess.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
p. M. Board called to order.
Mr.. Taylor, member of the committee
appointed by the last board to repre-
sent the county before the state board
of equalization, on behalf of said COM
mittee, presented the following report:
To the County Board of Iowa County;
GENTLEMEN -
The undersigned were appointed by the
county board of last year a committee to rep
resent this county before the State Board of
Confessedly one of the greatest problems of
to-day is the securing of uniformity of taxation.
The idea that taxation should be uniform that
the monetary burdens of government should be
borne by those holding and owning tho wealth
OF the country in proportion as they are owners
OF such, is by everybody admitted in an aca-
demic way, and is expressed in our fuudament-
al and statute law; but the idea practically
does not obtain. The shadow we have, the
substance eludcs us. Indeed, it may be truly
said that developing economic conditions in
effort strongly makes against uniformity. In
creaslng wealth in the line of property not
tangible and not visibly in tho possession of in
diyiduals and corporations, and in the line of
valuable franchise, and other and complex
forms that time is evolving. Every day is teaa-
ing tn defeat practical uniformity. The posi-
bility thus afforded is improved by those whose
avarice goes beyond their patriotism who are
entirely willing to work injustice to Others if
thereby self advantage comes, These things
we remark incidentally and i'll an introductory
way i'll token of our recognition of tho trend of
present conditions.
Our present Wisconsin system of assessment
OF taxes Is failure even as means of approx
imation to uniformity. 1t is not for us to at
tempt to designate what in our opinion are its
faults. Suffice it simply to say that it fails in
each primary assessment district it is worse
than useless IN conterring upon those state otli-
GERS at Madison, as merely an incidental duty.
The equalization of the values of the various
counties of the state of which in the nature of
things they can have no personal knowledge.
and respecting which the data upon which they
are supposed to act is more misleading than
correctly directive. In trusting to numbers
given by assessors us data, an equaiZing board
Is fairly safe; but no board can trust to the
figures of assessors in the matter of values.
This is known to all men who have had to do
with county equalization; and yet with IA gen
cral recognition OF this fact at Madison as else
where there more than anywhere else as they
adhere to the legal fiction is presumption that
the assessors actions are correct in the matter
of values. Seldom do they vary therefrom in
any effective degree. 1t is then leaning upon
the legal presumption mentioned which makes
it highly dangerous for any one county to on
force on the part of its assessors their legal
duty of returning full values Tho exercise of
virtue that doing no good, simply brings OPP
preston and inequitable taxation upon the
community that practices it is expensive to say
the least 1t must give those same people to
know that in cndeavoring to live Loyalty up to
the law they have burdened themselves simply
to the effect that those who shirked shall
have their burdens proportionately liEhtcned.
The probability of such state of affairs is suf-
hcent comment to show vcousness of our
system. lnless something different prevails
next year our increase tins year of more than
S,OO0OOO 90 in our valuation, an actual doub-
ling, may cost us a considerable sum. Not too
soon has Wisconsin rcsortcd to a tax commits
sion in the hope for better things. This
committee at Madison brought to the at
tcntion of the board of equalization the
fact that according to last years adjust
ment, Iowa county paid state taxes on
q valuation OF property per capita OF $500, La
fayette OF sol, Grant $3.50. We insisted that
the advantage of $50 per capita to Grant county
and $50 per capita to Lafayette county indi-
Gated on very strong prima facle manner that
the equalization of last year was uniform. We
pointed out that IN Il general way tho three
counties were physically similar though La
Fayette untouched by the Wisconsin, or tho
Mississippi rivers, was decidedly the better,
smoother in conformation. That the per cap
tia tax was fair in the case of the three
counties mentioned, they being similar, of equal
age in point of general settlemen, peopled in
nearly the same proportion with the leading
foreign and native elements, ready equal in the
matter of the proportion OF people living in
the cities villages and districts and about equal
in the matter of manufacturing enterprises
Further, and in support of our contention that
Iowa county has just cause of complaint, we
showed tho State Board that the figures re-
turned by the AeseSSOrS OF the three COun ties
respectively. The average in the three counties
devoted to the staple crops, wheat corn, oats,
barley, rye, potatoes and cultivated grasses,
the same embracing the tillable land Of said
counties. That 'of the area of Lafayette
countys tillable land was Al per cent OF its
total area of Grants s. per cent OF its area,
and of Iowa 3 per cent of its area. Ry these
figures we thus conclusyely showed that Grant
county's per capita burden shonld be rather
more than ours, instead OF $50 less and that La
Fayette's considerably more than ours rather
than $40 less We insisted further that what
the assessors had done with respect to real
estate values they had done with respect to
personal property, that failing to do right in
our case they had failed in the other to our
detriment. Further we.need not add, except to
say that we pressed every argument that could
be suggested by any and all data at hand and
obtainable. and whatever we could say truth,
knowledge of lthe the physical characteristics
OF the three counties.
We confess TO being not satisfied with the
figures made this year 10y the state board. Our
case was absolute in its strength, its truth
but hampered by the legal presumption of the
correctness of the assessors figures the board
did not make the figures we hoped for. Still
Grant county was raised above the figures Of
its assessors 81 414 3010U, Lafayette S29,T43 and
Iowa county SS3o Qi5.j0. There was this year a
general increase in the valuation Of the coun-
ties OF the state by the board, materially so in
the case of Grant county, certainly not suiii
GENTLY so in the case Of Lafayette.
Without making any recommendations, we
been able TO obtain the assessors of the coun'
ties of the state return property at about -
per cent Of its actual value. Any county going
above that is apt TO find itself Obliged to pay
for its action. Respectfully submitted,
j. W, TAYLOR,
SAMCEL w. REESE.
Committee.
On motion of Mr.. Osborne, the report
was accepted and ordered published
with the proceedings of this board.
K. l.. Joiner presented a report In
relation to certain tax certificates held
by the county, which on motion Of Mr.
Taylor, was ordered placed on file in thu
county clerks Office.
The committee on the report Of thu
county superintendent OF schools pre-
sented the following reports, both o.
which were unanimously adopted:
To the Honorable Board Of Supervisors Q
Iowa County:
GESTLEMES: We have carefully examines
the report OF the County Superintendent o
Scnoo.s and find such report correct and satis
factory. We. therefore. accept the statement
To the Honorable Board Of Supervisors o