Bryan morning eagle. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1898-1909, 1900-01-24

anomalies no certainly eXlst-these
gross and objectionable inequalities. "a
fruitful Of injustice and wrong. 10
stand prominently before the public
gaze. aud any effort 10 remove them is
violently denounced ln certain quar-.
tefs a. an assault upon capital and as
a hindrauce TO prosperity.
Jp0n the legislature devolyes the
hiEh and honorable duty OF righting
theae wrongs. and. II such should 10
accomplished. Il will earn and receive
the lasting gratitude OF every one who
uuly believes IN the doctrine of equal
Iishh 20 all and ot special privileges
70 hone-that the law should be no re-
hpecter of persons or Of things that no
one should be so strong as 90 be above
the requirements Of the law and none
90 weak as 10 be beneath It's protection
anu that no property OF whatever
hlha except that specifically exempted
oy the constitution. should be relieved
from contributing its just and propor-
uohai share 10 the support of the gov.
eminent A few facts gathered from
ouclal sources should convince every
one That conditions as % taxation have
not been Oyordrawn.
Can it be successfully maintained
that the railroads. including their roll.
ing STOCK we're properly listed az the
average rate Of S5.3il93 per mile and
that tne actual value of the increased
mileage with the addition OF rolling
ttocA and permanent improvements
ana betierments acquired and con-
slFucied during those years. as indica-
Tea Do their reports 90 the railroad
commission was limited 20 the sum OF
t,l-ol-s-the increase OF rendition Ia
mileage being 625 miles?
The decrease 0f 8I6t2li In the
matter of live stock is also noticeable
and cannot but impress the mind that
iis lsiment FOR the year last named
was not at all commemorate 10 It's true
value.
No more instructive and effective
Illustration o. tho gross inadequacy In
The return by the railways Of their
physical properties for taxation can be
given than a comparison OF the value
Of these properties as assessed with
that placed upon them by the railroad
commission.
The assessment rolls. as before
sisted show them 10 have been rem
dered az the sum u 81 .032. 1856. The
commission, after a most careful and
Intelligent examination. has placed
their true value at that time al Sl42.-
AsollI0l-a difference of S7i. i.t57.SS2
Whose fault has Il been that such
gross under-valuation WIS possible?
u viii not suffice o. say that the loss
o. the state has been compensated by
the receipts from the passenger tax. as
they amounted only 10 1904 81 dur
Ing the same year.
To make such a rendition more ag-
gravatlng and less eXcusable IL has
for several years past been contended
by these roads that. IN fixing their own
tn1 upon the people for freight car
rilge. they should be permitted % do
sn upon the basis OF the fair value O;
their property and In order TO ascer-
tain such value that they may take
into account the original est OF con-
ttruction. the amount oXneldcd In per-
uanent Improvements the amount and
market value of their bonds and stock.
the present az compared with the
original cost OF construction. the prob
able earning capacity Of the properties
under particular rates prescribed by
statute and the sum required TO meet
operating expenses.
This contention WAS approved by the
supreme court OF the United States IN
tho case Of Smyth SIS. Amcs. October
term. 1897. In the language that have /
used. and Il IS upon this and kindred I
cases that the roads depend In their /
as 20 freight rates with f.
the state railroad commission.
i, will be interesting TO note. In /.
this connection, that as shown by that I
commission. the outstanding capital /
stock OF the railways In this state /
amounted on June 80, 1895. 10 $685. T.
5l4 3lO. and that the amount Of their /
bonded Indebtedness was then $2-g,
40 Ool n the railways be permitted /
"a exact from the people freight rates /
high enough % pay the interest on I
such Indebtedness. and dividends on T.
such stock besides expenses of ad- /
and Tor other purposes. I.
With what justice can 10 bee urged tn /
they should be only required 90 pay q .
tax upon but oue-hslf OF the value Of /
their physical properties for the sup /
port of the state government and Of f.
the public schools?
Why should they object 10 a rule Tor /
taxation that has received the EN- .
phati. sanction ot the highest judicial .
tribunal In the land. and which has .
been pronounced by 10 90 be the fair I
esf and most equitable method that .
could be devised? Ina well considered T.
onui0n OF great Importance the sue
premo court OF the United States spoke
81. follows.
"When you have asccrtaincd The cur
rent cash value of the whole funded
debt. and The current cash value of thc
entire number of shares. YOU have hN
ne action of those who above oll oth-
er cam hest estimate it asccriaIHaI T.
the frHe value Ot The road. of it prop
ertE Dos capital stock and it iran-
chIsa fOr these are all represented 10y
the value N its bonded debt and of The
shares oi its capital stock Aud fur
ther III may be we'll doubted whether
on not q better method of determining
that portion OF the track within any
one county has been devised. than 90
ascertain the value OF the whole road,
and apportion the value within the
county by It's relative length 20 the
-. I