Omaha daily bee., 1903-02-05
REPLIES TO RAILROAD MEN
Lawyer Mcintosh Continues TIE Argument
on Railroad Taxation.
SAYS CITY ASSESSMENT is DISTINCT
Passage Of House Roll ~, He Argues,
VIII Not ARect Assessments for
stnte, County and school
District Taxes.

J. II. Mcintosh, after reading the state
ment published by the tax representatives
Of the railroads yesterday morning said:
The railroads, in replying to my article
on II. r. III, published in the Omaha pa
pers Tuesday. keep on lodging the issue
raised by this bill just as they want to
keep on lodging their city taxes.
They talk about state, county and school
railroad taxes, which have nothing to do
with this bill. and which this bill does not
affect. Sections 80 and 40 of the revenue
law require the state Board OF Equaliza-
tion to value all railroad property in the
state for state, county and school purposes.
II. r. III does not touch or affect sections
30 and 40 Of the revenue law. After. this
bill is passed the state Board II Equdliza-
tion will value all railroad property within
the state for state, county and school pur-
poses, Just as IL did before 10 was passed.
The state, county anC sthool district rail-
road taxes will be levied. collected and
equal in amount after this bill Is passed,
Just as before. II. r. III relates to metro
politan city railroad taxes and does not re-
late to or affect railroad, state, county and
school taxes.
The railroads do not undertake to show
how H.. r.. III would deprive the state,
any county OF a single school district OF one
penny OF railroad taxes, but they evade
this question and call II. r. III the Omaha
scheme Then they say, first, 1t is UNI
lawful because 1t is double taxation, and.
second, is impracticable because it under
takes to separate an inseparable entity
I shall answer these In their order.
why DO Railroads wOrryF
"As to the claim that It would be I'M
lawful for the same assessor to value rail-
road property within cities for city taxes
that values all other property within the
city for that purpose. If that were really
30 II the Omaha scheme were really UNI
lawful or the railroads thought it was,
does anyone believe they would be giving
themselves so much trouble about 1t? Does
anyone believe they would think It neces-
sary to offer their checks for the insertion
OF railroad prepared Misrepresentation as
local or editorial articles in the press OF
the state?
at did not worry them much when the city
assessor Of Omaha this year, disregarding
the existing discriminating law as uncon-
stitutional. valued railroad property as he
valued other property. The railroads, with
perfect equanimity, stood by without a
lobby, without paid editorials, almost with
out a word OF objection. and saw this done'
because, believing it to be unlawful, they
knew they could again, as they had so often
lone in the past resort to the federal courts
to shield them from the exercise Of state
authority. And their suits for this pur-
pose are now pending. So unconstitutional
laws don't much worry the railroads.
at is not proposed to withdraw the value
OF the terminal properties from the outside
mileage for either state. county or school
purposes, OF to affect the law taxing rail-
roads for state, county and school purposes.
This bill relates only to metropolitan city
taxes. II has no bearing on state, county or
school taxes, or upon the law under which
they are assessed. By confusing taxes for
city purposes with taxes for state, county
and school purposes the railroads evidently
hope to mislead the Legislators. Therefore
there is no analogy between the wheat
illustration the railroads give and taxing
railroads for city purposes.
Treble Taxation for All.
"'In metropolitan cities every taxpayer
pays not only double taxes, but treble taxes,
namely. state taxes. county and school taxes
and city taxes. These taxes are each levied
by a different authority and for a different
purpose. How property is valued for one Of
them does not affect the way of valuing it
for another. Hence when we ask that the
same oficer that values other city property
for city taxes value also railroad property
within the city for city taxes we are merely
asking for them the same thing that exists
for US.
'As to II. r. Ill being impracti-
cable. Suppose It is; then 1t won't hurt the
railroads, Why should they spend money
for false local or editorial items, and
maintain a powerful lobby at Lincoln at
great cost. to defeat something that is inn
practicable? But why should Il be Inn
practicable for the same assessor to value
railroad property for city taxes that values
other city property for city taxes?
ION the ground that It is impracticable
for the city assessor to value railroad city
property for city taxes. do the railroads
expect 20 keep on lodging city taxes? II
Il Is impracticable. then why leave ~ with
the state board? The logic OF this preten-
sion IL the first honest argument I have as
yet heard from the railroads; for Il means
Of course that because n Is impracticable
for the city assessor 10 value their property
for city taxes II must be impracticable for