Omaha daily bee., 1902-03-26

stead OF that OF George T.. Morton. He re-
Piled that Cyrus Morton. deceased. was
his father and that he (the witness) had
inherited the property by will. A certified
copy Of the will was offered in evidence.
Mr.. Fleming was recalled to the stand.
What instructions did you give your
deputy assessors when they started out to
make the assessment for 1902" asked Mr..
Mcintosh.
Instructions TO Deputies.
81 instructed them to assess the personal
property" was the answer. They we're to
ascertain the fair cash value and then as
sess II at 40 per cent OF that fair cash
value"
"who assessed the real e~state?'
Il did"
was this 40 per cent basis of assess
ment applied to the real estate also?'
1T was"
when it came to assessing the prop
erty Of the Ave public service corporations
did you proceed by first ascertaining the
fair cash value and then did you assess 1t
at 40 per cent OF that fair cash value?"
This question was objected to. Attor-
ney Webster said: Three days ago, stand
ing over by that table and in the presence
Of Mr.. Morsman, Mr.. Hall and myself, Mr..
Fleming said that he had ascertained the
fair cash value of this corporation property
and that II had been assessed at 40 per
cent Of that value. Now, II he wants to
go back on that statement he has three
men who will bear witness that he has re-
versed himself"
81 object to the counsel intimidating the
witness" said Mr.. Mcintosh.
The referee sustained the objection of Mr..
Webster and no further progress was made
~ IL - ~ -
question. The hearing adjourned for the
noon recess.
The Afternoon Session.
At 2 o'clock Tax Commissioner Fleming
was recalled to the witness stand.
"were the Ave public service corpora
tions assessed at 40 per cent OF their fair
cash value ?" was the first question OF At
torney Mcintosh.
Mr.. Webster objected to this as calling for
a conclusion of the witness. He was over
ruled.
They were not" was the answer.
Mr.. Mcintosh offered in evidence a sched-
ule Of property and It's value which had
been submitted to the tax commissioner by
the officers OF the street railway company.
1t had been made out on a blank form fur
nished from the commissioners ofice.
did the street railway company fur
nish you with any data as to the value OF
schedule % he asked.
Not until it appeared before the board
Of review
Mr.. Mcintosh then read the items from
the schedule: Capital stock, $50 0 900;
number Of shares 50, 1000; market value OF
stock, $500, 900; Indebtedness, 81, 500, 991.6 SO
real and personal property $3.50. 4S5."
Ibid you have any definite information as
to the length Of the company's tracks in the
city," he asked.
81 did not"
cor as to the number OF It's motors OF
cars?"
Not exactly"
Ibid you have any definite knowledge
as to the value Of the machinery in its
powerhouses?"
mo"
"or as to the mileage Of its tracks out
side of the city?"
'Only generally"
Ibid you know that the company is pay
ing 4 per cent dividends on its stock, anc
has been for more than three years."
Attorney Webster objected to this ques,
tion. "If we are to get at the value of the
property at ALL" said he, this is not the
, way to do It,"
The objection was sustained.
Value Of Railways Realty.
"wha was the aggregate Of the assessed
valuation of the real estate OF the stree
railway company for 1902?' was the mex
question.
II believe 1t was S76,O95."
This schedule shows that you assessed
the personal property Of the company a
1927, 900, and that the board OF review re
duced It to $3.50, 900. What data did 20,
have to aid you in forming that conclu
sion?"
"I figured the entire value at 81, 500. 900.
How did you happen to decide upon tina
! sum-"
well, l was in doubt as to which Of tw,
e authorities would apply in the case. Tn
. state revenue statutes told me to do on
I thing and the city charter told me TO d
another. The 81. 100000 is a sort of compro
: mise"
you knew that the street railway com
Z pany was a going concern and that 1t wa
I paying interest on its bonds?"
: Mr.. Webster objected and the objectio
= was sustained.
Even the assessment you made was oh
jected to before the Board of Review
wasn't itT"
' yes. siT.'
: Questions similar to the foregoing wer
, asked with reference to each Of the othe
: public service corporations and similar OF
s ~iections were interposed. 1t was show
u that the gas company had made a return {
$3.50, 900 as the value Of its property, pei
sonal and real. The tax commissioners ha
assessed the property OF the water CON
: pany at 81, 900, 900, which had been cut I
1915, 900 by the Board of Review.
did the board in making that cut NAH
inquiries as TO the valuation Of the proI
erty?" asked Mr.. Mcintosh.
Mr.. Webster objected and the objectio
was sustained.
! was $575 900 an arbitrary figure, decide
upon without reference to the value OF II
!, property"
4 The witness answered that he didn
know, as he had had nothing to do wit
~ that narf ~ thu uork