The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1904-10-31
UNCLE y OF Nslohl TOEDlSTHE
Sig GROVE OPERA
tina iii e NO I'D TX THE
yoRp8o OF SENATOR E-tSiNs ts g
oNsTHEsTAx QUESTION.
Below IS VIVA le says:

y Below IS wha III says
3 ST he main purpose of the new ia,
i law is to compel the assessment q
millions pom mil ions Of persona $ant
{ :intangib1 properly ich has hereto
s fore escaped taSatlo and I'd M orr
J, nearly equaiize taxation Of lands III
Z the, various conntie ma King be large
Z land owner pay as much in propor
{: |ztion5 as The small on e: The new law
q reduces the limit for AVIATION for
q State, county and scnool purposes
3 one half that is, from ST. on the
5 hundred dollars to3s5. cents. his is
: Sc1early reduction
d ssi5stl ow, If by reason Of the operation
I OF the new law personal properly.
: such as credits, notes. mortgages,
s moneys, stock and bonds in Ill the
Z counties are placed on the assess
I|3ment list of tax books, valued, for ex.
Lam pie, say at I've or ten mtllIon$dol5
liars in each county at never paid
4 any taxes before whic oh will surely
a be the case then, wi II 1T not follow
Ethat with the taking OFF OF one half
i the taxes. as before stated, ard the
addition of such large amount of.
4 pLopS4 ~ S4a
1 was taxed before, that the levy, even
on actual values, Will be SO low that
the taxes must be- considerably less
| than ever before
Just work this out and you have
the answer to the Whole question.
What Democrats Want.
The Democrats in this camp aign
seemingly don want this personal
property that has been in htdfngSand
escaping taxation under the old law
put on the assessment list, but want
to allow it to escape as heretofore,
and the small land owner go on pay
owner not being assessed at their real
value. For instance in my count
and this is the case in all the coun
ties OF the State-I know two farm
Eers living side by side owning about |
$50 acres each Improved lands on
which they pay about equal taxes; but /
one of the farmers Is loaning 100000 I
to the people of the COUNT on which /
he is receiving 6 per cent to#S per
cent, and on which he does not ipay3t
one dollar Of taxes. Now, is thfs5E
right? Should not the farmer own
ing the 100000 ofpersona1 property
pay taxes on it, as he must do under
the new. law? Then, again, it is>a
we'll known fact that in the Target
counties of the State. men who own
only a house and lot, or rent one, pay
taxes from SIS 8to $50 or 500. while
they are worth in personal property
money, credits, etc. from $5o, 900 to
various counties will con firm this5l
statement as to such men paying lit
tie or no taxes. In justice to the Z
small property owner should this con-
tinue? The new law Will correct this;
and outrage by COMPEL
Ing under the strictest kind OF an
oath and the eye of a tax commission
ar and competent assessor, all people
to- make a true return of all taxable
Under the new Law 1t is made the
1uty of the tax commissioner and the
various assessors to compel fair and Is
ust returns Of property This will u
-esu1t in putting on the assessment p
list hundreds of millions of dollars ]
# personal property;it will also com 81
,e14the owners of large tracts of land, e
mineral, timber, improved and unim-
proved, to pay taxes on something.
Ike the actual value, which was not |#s
he case under the oldiaws, and doing RI
hese things will unquestionab1y re-
luce taxation. Ss
viii Not increase Taxes. t
The Democrats claim that the new q
aw will increase the taxes. This Is a
lot the case. because right In the be- e
inning it reduces the limit one-half, i,
$ before stated. Butt they answer u
hat you are now going to assess ID
property at its actual value. On the sg
ubject of assessment the new and .
Id law Is nearly the same. The old
aw requires personal property to be rs
ssessed at its actual value and real ~
roposed at its true value. Substan-
tally no difference. The new Law 9
the findings Of the tax com z
Mission, composed of5Democrats and y,
alike. ID
The Real Objection. d
$50 that the question is not thatSthe M
axes will be Increased and assess =
1ents at actual value viii be hurtful,
ut the real objection to the law IS 4.