The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-09-30
FIGURES THAT SHOW IT
differentiation of Other Property is
Denied.
NO CUSTOM OF NATURALIZATION
A Steady and Rapid Increase in the Value Of
Railroad Properly For the Past Half
Dozen Years Shown by Com
paratiye Figures.
paratiye Figures.

Attorneys for the Corporation Commits
sion yesterday filed answer in the suit
brought in the Federal court during July,
restraining the commission from collect
ing taxes from the railroads on valua-
ton IN excess of that of 1898.
a6i This answer is almost exactly like that
y filed in similar case a year ago, and
now pending in the courts. In fact the
only material change in it are in two par
ticulars.
sbnow being fixed beyond all question, by
- amendments to the law passed at the ad-
journed session of the Legislature, only
brief reference is made to it in the an
swer
2. The answer is so framed as to
raise the question of differentiation of
railroad property in case it is shown that
other property is assessed at its full value.
1t was contended by the railroads that
in the answer in the case begun last
< year this issue was not raised.
The commission. in it's answer, con-
tends. among other things:
That it is true. that under the taxing
laws of North Carolina. the township
assessors and list takers of the several
counties in the State are charged with
the duty. and are invested with thc
power, of assessing for taxation the real
and personal property of the citizens OF
the State, although as a rule the valua-
ton under oath by the tax payer of his
personal property is accepted and adopt
ed by the list takers And it is not true
that from time immemoral the said aQ-
thorities have intentionally, designedly,
Systematically or arbitrarily undervalued
for taxation throughout the State the
said real and personal property of the
the tax payers, and it is not true that the
valuation put upon the said real and per-
sonal property throughout the State, from
time immemorial. in accordance with a
we'll known custom, has not exceeded the
sum of fifty ner cent. of the real value
of the property, nor is it true that saiG
property is undervalued for the purpose
of reducing the proportionate burden of
the expense OF the State government,
which each particular county would have
to bear. or for any other purpose. That
it Is not true that any rule of reduction
was or has at any time been known to
the public, to the legislative and execu-
tive branches of the government or to
the North Carolina Corporation Commits
sion On the contrary, the defendants al
lege that no such custom of undervalu3-
ton as charged exists in this State, and
they further allege, upon information ard
belief. that property other than railroad
property is assessed by local boards of
assessors and list takers in each town
ship at approximately it's true value IN
money as the law requires it should be.
That e is not true that the defendant
commission has any knowledge OF the al
legged rule of differentiation. nor is 1T
true, as alleged, that the railroad prop
erty as returned by the complainant for
taxation has been assessed by the de-
PENDANT commission at its full value. On
the contrary, the property of the COM
plainant and other railroads in North
Carolina has been assessed at less than
it's true value, while the other classes OF
property in the State have been assessed
at their true value.
The defendants further answering say,
that upon the basis of the value OF the
funded debt and capital stock of the COM
plainant. its property and the property re-
turned By it for taxation, have not been
assessed at their true value. That upon
the basis oe the number of miles OF the
complainant's road N this State as COM
pared with it's total mileage in and out
of the State (ascertaining the value of its
entire plant as a unit upon the basis
of it's funded debt and it's capital stock,
it's property and the property returned
by it have rot been assessed at their
true value. That upon the basis of the
cost OF construction and equipment, MAX
ing n fair allowance for the value of its
intangible property, it's property and the
property returned by it, has not been as
sessed at their true value. That upon
the basis of what the compliments
property and the property returned by it
would sell for in open market, they have
not been assessed at their true value.
That upon any other proper and just basis
the complainants property and the prop
erty returned by it have not been assessed