The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-09


 municipalities, which, as has been learned from long experience and ob- servation, are being constantly exer- clsed. and he says of this that this very language was put there to prevent that very thing.
 MT. Beddow-Does not that particu- lar part of that opinion which you have read refer to the power of the municipality in assessing the value?
 MT. Coleman-Yes, SIT; and why the limitation was put, and this decision. if any one will take it and examine it from beginning to end, he will find in 1t not the remotest support to this prop osiltion. On the contrary, it gives the reason why the limitation should be fixed. and it is perfectly clear when you take the very case mentioned by him.
 Now the City Assessor in January without any restriction or limitation, may assess the property at whatever he sees property and there is very little remedy for the man himself whose property is being assessed. But when he is required to come and take the as- sessment that has been fixed by the city, under proper authority, such as the assessor himself, and passed upon by the Probate Court, you have some thing clear. fixed, and is a protection, and it is not left in the hands of the municipal assessor at all. That is the reason of it. But 1t would be utterly impossible. with any consideration Of fairness, to apply the principle con tended for here. We have a fiscal year. We are bound to have it. That is fixed by law as the first day of Oc- tober. The Probate Court meets in June of the following year, and at that time it is the duty of all parties whose property has been assessed to appear before that court, and if there are any alterations to be made-too much an assessment too low a rate-there they ara adjusted and finally determined and that is the conclusion of the court in July.
 Now, then. we have exactly what the Judge refers to here in speaking of IT, a fixed. satisfactory. conclusive lim'ta- tion upon their power. It is net left to the assessor. But even go still fur ther. according to the doctrine advo- cated here, if the limits of a town were extended at any time after this hscai year before the first day of January why a mans property must be assess ed although it was not subject to as- sessment a that time. If party sees fit to build house on his land, he IS to be assessed that year. notwithstand- ing the fact that the fiscal year has terminated the October before; in fact. there would be no fixed way of assess ing valuations and fixing taxation upon parties There is a great deal in this. There is no hardship. though in th- CT, and there is no delay. Whenever the assessments are affixed and deter- mined in July, the city assessor mas nothing to do but go there and get the assessment already fixed and limited and, as a matter of course. his dut1es are easy, and they are satisfactory Where we have been working SO long under a system so clear and which mas given so much satisfaction, oo not think it would be a wise policy to en- ter upon a field of speculation. and l. therefore. oppose the amendment. MT. Cobb When it says "the preced- ing year." doesn't it mean the pre- ceding tax year, ana II tne taxes for the municipality are assessed in the very same year m which this final determination IS made' wouldn't it be the preceding tax year which closes in July Mir. Coleman-That Is a matter or course. and that reminds me of another noint in this decision The gentleman said something about property escaping taxation. In the first place, the mer- chant is required to give in his prop i erty at the time he has the greatest amount of goods on hand during the | year. Here it says:
 "It is argued, that this construction exempts all property which may nave escaped taxation during the preceding year, and all property which may come ] into existence after the completlon or the State assessment. AS to property which may escape assessment, the mu- 1 6idpnUprV have | brt to report the same to the assessor and collector, whose duty it then be- 1 comes to assess it." The fact is that | every propositloE thar has been made has been fully discussed and determln- ed upon, and the law ought not to be | disturbed.
 Mr. deGraffenreid-I move to lay the amendment of the gentleman from Jefferson on the table.
 On a vote being taken, the motion to lay on the table prevailed l The following amendment by MT. Murphree and MT. Sanford of Pike was read:
 And provided, further. that the ad- ditionaI tax authorized to be levied by the city of Troy shall when so levied and collected be used Exclusively In the payment of bonds and interest cou- pons thereon hereafter issued in the adjustment of the present bonded ln- debtedness of said city,
 The President-The question will be upon the, amendment offered by the gentleman from Pike.
 Upon a vote being taken the amend ment was adopted.
 Mir Espy-I have an amendment de- sire to offer which was prepared by | MT Lee of Escambia.
 | The amendment was read follows:
 Amend Section Il by adding the word 'Brewton' after the word Wood lawn in line IS.
 Upon a vote being taken the amend ment was adopted.
 | MT. LomaX-I have an amendment
 The amendment was read as follows:
 Amend Section H. reported by the | Committee on Municipal Corporations, by adding the following:
 And provided further, that this Section shall not apply to the city of Montgomery. which City shall have the right to levy and collect a iax of not exceeding one half of 1 per cent. per year upon the value of all ble property therein fixed by Stale tax ation for general expenses. and an ad- | ditiCnal tax of no. exceeding three l fourths of l per cent. per year upon | the value of property therein as fixed | for State taxation, to be devoted ex- clusively 70 1he payment ot it's public debt, interest thereon and renewals | thereof, and to the maintenance of it's ences."
 Vii