The Elbert County tribune., 1902-11-27
Explain. the Reason. for the Settlement.

Explains the Reasons Tor the Settiement.
In reply to a recently published article
in this paper, wherein we stated that the
county commissioners had settled with
the Colorado and Southern and Union
Pacific railways in the matter OF the pay
ment of their 1901 taxes, last weeks FL
bert County Banner contained the fol
lowing:
Now while we do not wish to enter in
to any newspaper controversy with our
esteemed friend Pope of the Tribune,
we believe in justice to the board OF
County Commissioners, and for the en-
lightenment of the public, especially the
tax payers OF the county, few words
will explain the reason of this settle
ment and justify the Board in making
the same.
Taking the report OF the county as
SCISSOR for the year of 1900, the total valu
alton Of all property in the county was
81, $50, 5000, OF which s776,335.OO, or
nearly one half, was corporate (railroad)
property. Again, taking the assessors
report for 1901 the total valuation OF the
county was g, ,234 ,542.Oo of which 81, 1872
97s, or nearly two-thirds, was corporate
property. The 1901 valuation on cor
porate property being an increase of
nearly 200 per cent as whole instead
OF 800 per cent as stated above, while
the increase in the valuation in the
county was only, as a whole about Is
per cent, and about S25 10000 Of this in
crease was on new property, such as re
OF live stock, etc.
The corporate property OF the state
was assessed by the state board OF as
SCISSORS under the revenue law of 1901,
which was declared an unconstitutional
measure, and later the state board Of
equalization made a suppositional as
sessment by certifying to the same fig
ures which the state board OF assessors
had used in their assessment-a very
questionable act.
The railroads operating in this county
have always paid their taxes promptly,
with but few exceptions, when they have
considered that they had received justice
at the hands OF the state officials in the
valuation of their property. We firmly
believe that there would not have been
a single "kick" on the part OF the cor
porations had their valuation been in
creased by any reasonable amount.
The state board of equalization must
have surely seen their lack of iudg-
ment in their estimate of values for the
year OF 1901, else, why did they make
such sweeping reduction in valuation
for 1902.
The valuation OF corporate property
for 1901 as stated, was g., ,152, 1880, and
the same property as assessed by the
state board OF equalization for 1902 was
81, ,402, ,523lO0, very material reduction,
which has been reduced still more by
the state board OF equalization since the
assessors report was published. Is this
great reduction in the valuation OF cor
porate property as made by the state
board Of equalization not sufficient proof
that they consider the valuation Of 1901
as excessive? Again, it was considered
by the board of commissioners a far
wiser plan to settle on compromise,
than to go into the courts in order to at
tempt the collection of these taxes, and
maintain suits for years, perhaps, and
then in all probability to find that the
county had the famous white Ele-
phant' on its hands. And, again, this
settlement was no doubt made upon the
advice Of able counsel, and we know that
a settlement Of this matter in this way
has been freely expressed by great
many Of the heaviest individual tax
payers in the county.