The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-02-19
COLQUITTS OBJECTIONS
TO The Amendments to Chapters Six and
Seven Of The Tax Bill.
SET up TWO STANDARDS OF VALUATION
says the Commission Had Very Care
fully Considered the Matter BE-
fore Framing Their Provisions.

missioner Colquitt expressed nimself as
follows to The Post correspondent today
with regard TO the amendments adopted
by the house last Friday to chapters and
7 Of the tax bill:
The adoption OF the wooten- SAMSON
amendment to the chapter ON railroads
sets up two standards OF valuation for
taxation. Chapter requires the assess
ment OF all other property Cor taxation at
its full and true value, and by full and
true value Is meant what 1t would sell
for for cash. not at forced or auction sale.
but what II is fairly worth in money at
the time Of assessment.
The amendment requires assessors and
commissioners court to be governed in
assessing railToad property at the value
estimated by the railroad commission, or
what the commission estimates it could
be replaced for, fixes different standard
Of valuation and makes the cost OF thing
the value OF 1t for taxation.
This is Just what the railroads want
81 is what they are rendering their prop
erty under now, They could not have
asked for more, they didn't want more
than the Wooten Samson amendment
gives them.
They know, or their attorneys do. that
the Federal courts have held the COM
missions valuation not TO be a correct
one for the purpose OF fixing taxes.
In State Railroad Tax Cases" (92 L. s
605) Justice Miller. IN rendering the opin-
ton OF the court. said
When you have ascertained the cur
rent cash value OF the whole funded
debt, and the current cash value OF the
entire number OF shares YOU have, by
the action Of those who. above all
others, can best estimate It, ascer-
f1fnaa che xple 81 ha nj
It's property IS capital stock. and It's
tranchlses, FOR these are all repre-
sented by the value OF its bonded
debt and the shares OF its capital
stock.
And the court added IN the same case
that;
1t may well be doubted whether any
better mode OF determining that por-
ton OF the track within any one cOuu-
~ has been devised than 10 ascertain
The value Of the whole road, and ap
portion the value within the county
by its relative length to the whole.
Tho chapter taxing railroads as framed
by tbE TAX commission met this very idau-
ticalfr rule aud complied at tho same time
With ina provision of the constitution
which says that "all property of railroad
companies shall be assessed and the taxes
collected Ia the several counties In when
said pronerty is situated. including SO
much es the road bed and fixtures as shall
be IA each county" The bill as framed
pTovised for the very thing the eonstitu-
rion requires and ia In exact harmony with
what The supreme court says is the best
mode ~ determining the value. We re-
CURED the officials 10 make sworn state
ment of the Whole current value OF their
bonded debt and stock; they are required
10 furnish the same information as to the
whole length Of their main line and the
number Of miles OF side tracks and other
tracks In the State. and IN each county
On this sworn information the tax assessor
was required 10 value tho property for as
sessment and taxation at It's selling value
as ascertained from the Rworn informa-
tion furnished by the officials OF the road
BY the same sworn abatement the assessor
aseertained the number Of miles OF main
and sideirack in his county and to Rssess
the same at the proportion that the mum.
Der % miles in his county bore TO tn,
total value OF the total mileage and all o
the property Of the railroad In the state
The precise means for his ascertaining tn,
value in any particular county was re
CURED for the guidance Of the nssesse
Tor assessing the property In a counN
where Other valuable improvements arr
necessary on account OF yalume ~ busl
ness done by the road. or the Requirement
or shops. more miles Of sldetracks ar,
made necessary. mile OF sidetraclS woul,
not cost so much as a mile OF main track
but for the proper use Of other improve,
ments the sidetracks we're necessary In.
cldents, and IN valuing the sidetracks th,
same as main tracks WILL in most ever,
instance. cover the other necessary i'm
provements, like depot buildings. shpus
turntables. and the like. The entire mile
age OF a given road. the Tcxas and Pa
clho for instance, will demonstrates tina
the plan submitted by the tax commission
VIII come nearer locating the value o
railroad property in each county through
Which It runs at its tire value. than an,
other method Of state board OF equnlisa
ton.
But the amendment by Wooten and san
eom makes the estimated cost of re.nto
auction the basis OF value for assessnan+
AS l SAID, the railroads could not hav,
had It more to their liking. II ixes ,
dlnerent basis Of valuation for them thai
that on which other property would b.
assessed. There may be vast differenr,
between the cost Of property and the vain,
or ~. An acre Of black land NAV bav,
cost ~ IN its raw state thirty years ago
and II may have cost S. per acre 10 mn
II IN a state OF cultivation, making IN,
cost and Improvement S. for an acre. I
the cost of construction, as estimated n,
tue railroad commission. is fair basI,
OF valuation Of railroad property In Dalla
county why would not the cost of IN
land and actual cost OF improving 1t he
iair basis for taxing lan:? And VIII
should any distinction be made betwee,
the two in the method OF estimating IN,
Value for taxable purposes?
But then the railroads. or THAR NJ
torneys, know that the supreme court n
the case Of G.. C.. G. and 81. p r. p "a
vs. Backus, l5i u. s.. PAGE 4sa cas-
which went up from Indiana. said tina
Either property must be declared who'll
exempt from state taxation or taxed q
Us value. irrespective OF tho causes nm
uses which have brought about sue
value" and in the very same opinion ~
court says the "rule OF property taxatio,
IS the rule Of value" aud they proceed (
Nph7f the Identical method Of yaIuatin,
as = pronosed by the tax commission.
ne surname court has further said Z,
fnat onip n thaf never was IL held ina
me cost of a thing was the test 81 n
ya'ne.' This the attorneys OF the rail
roads tnnw because they have read m
INK commissions report which quotes ri
rsse, They have read the case. TOO. am.
have never ATTEMPTED to atgack the sound
mesa o. the doctrine which Il declares ii
ihcee Indiana cases.
But then. in the railroad commission
sHits The commission contended that Il Ia,
the rlght 10 Ak RATS on tho valuation mad
by them. Blu. the railroads denied m
rftfhf mr. f1a AZ r.,.,fo.t..,. .t.t-