The age-herald., 1900-08-05
1t Is too high he can appeal to the Board

1t Is too high he can appeal to the Board of Equalization. 's "s J. Heiskell, Mayor" There are a great many other defects in the bill referred to, which we trust others will take up and let us all fight the act to finish, as 1t were We have not been able to obtain a capoy of the auditors re- port for 1899, but the one for 1898 Is be- fore us. The auditor says: 'If the state owes a single duty to its citizens. 1t Is to see that each Is required to bear his only just proportion of expense. When man Sees that he is not Protected by law and by the officers of the law, he feels that it Is not only his right, but his duty to pro tect himself Now let us see how the taxpayers of Jefferson county are made to bear their equal part of the burden of tax ation."
 Thirty-sx counties of the state, so the report says, only show increased assess ments, while thirty show decreases. The reports show that in thirty-two counties only was there any work done by the coun- ty tax commissioners; In the other thirty four counties there was no commissioner orshe was inactive and has reported no re- suit of labor. Is this a fair bill under which we are operating? Now for the figures. The total valuations for 1898 were $256. .256 295; the increase over 1897 was sS.s6O,332 In thirty-six counties. Of this in- crease Jefferson contributed s, ,453, ,956, but remember the remaining thirty counties show decreases of $4,094,174 showing a net gain of increase of only s4, s66 160, and to obtain that result, mark you, 1t required Jefferson to furnish nearly five and one half million If 1t had not been for Jeff ferson county's raises where would the state have been? But where does the mat ter stop? In 1899 Jefferson is raised more than five million again, and then on top of that comes 1900 with another increase of 6Xya r,nil1 nd fIA ,,,,f. Is not near through with us. Is this to go on indefinitely? It certainly will unless the counties of the state join hands with Jefferson at the next Legislature say of the back tax law, -"mene, mene tekel upharsin." or thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting" in the first principal of taxation, l. e.: That each taxpayer shall bear their equal part of the burden of taxation" We can readily see why the average taxpayer has quietly sub mitted to this unfair bill; the majority nave only one piece of property and the raise each year of from $lO0 to s1,O0O is too small to spend time and money to att tempt to have it reduced. The enormity of the injustice does not come home to or is realized by him, but to the real estate agent 1t Is more apparent. Why? Because the agents represent several thousand non- resident taxpayers in and out of the state (we are not allowed to assess for our resi-
 fE immense sums. Naturally the outside man. within and without the state, thinks that because he is a nonresident of the state and county. it Is an open sesame to jump on him particularly, but we are glad to say that bad as the law Is the non-resi- dent receives as fair treatment as those who reside in the county. The commits sioner we can assure you is no respecter of persons; it is the raises that he must have in lieu of a salary; but be 1t said to the credit of MT. Wetmore we have known in: more cases than one that the poor widows burdens have been lightened; but we sus- pect that other female taxpayers wish now they had been born widows
 We took occasion in a former article to say that we were not fighting the Board or the commissioner, for they are sworn to carry out the law, but it is the bad com pany they keep that is objectionable; they, keep company with a bad law.
 MT Editor, we trust you will do your part in bringing before the people the necessity Of repeating this act, and when the legis- lature convenes we feel sure that from the multitude of brany men that will gather at the capitol this fall they will find remedy for the evil.
 Yours truly.
 w. B. .LEEDY co.