The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1904-10-24
d vs..
BeIow; s Wl a & ne says:

-.
ment istaof tax books, valued, for e1s-:
ample say at fiYeEor ten million dol
liars each county that never paid
e taxes before which will surely.
De- the case hem viii It not follow
king 9 of one half
taS q efore stated, and the
EDITION &c such d large amount of
prop " tot he taxable list that never
Vsas taxed before that the levy, even
Con aetnaJ values VIII be- So dow that
taxes tlsta be considerable less
than ever ore
Iust work this out and you have
he ans q whole question.
What - democrats Want.
Democrats in this campaign
e1ning1 dom want this personal
propert hat has been in hiding and
segcaping axations under the old law
put On assessmen list, but want
allow it5to escape as heretofore,
4 and the small land owner go on pay
taxes. the lands Of the large land
owner not being assessed at their real
value. For instance, in my county
this the case in all the coun-
les the State-I know two farm
s2srs lying side by side owning about
s150 acres each improved lands on
which fheySpay3 about equal taxes, but
one the farmersRis 1oaning 100000
ne people Of the county, on which
receiFing per cent to s per
and on which he does not pay.
one o11ar So taxes Now,4is this
Shout not the farmer own
ing ha 81 900 Of personal property
pay taxes onsi t, as he must do under
q new law? Then, again, it is a
well sknownsfact that in the large
counti he IS tate; men&who own
sonly house and lot, or rent one, pay
IS $50 or 500, While
they are5SWorthi in personal property,
$500, G00: each. The tax books in the
various counties viii confirm this
statement to such men paying lit
or no taxes In Justice to the
small spropertyso owner should this con-
tinue The new law will correct this
inequality and outrage by compell-
unde r The strictest kind of an
oath and8theSeye of a tax commission
and competent$a assessor, all people
q to- make a true return of all taxable
property.
81 Underthe newlaw it is made the
duty Of the8tax commissioner and the
various assessors to compel fair and
returns ofEsproperty. This will
Tesn1t III in putting#on the assessment
Il list hundreds of millions of dollars
ofpersonaI property; it will also com
pe1stheE owners OF large tracts of land,
nineral.. timber. improved and unim-
proved, to pay taxes on something
The case 8under the old laws, and doing
these things vii Internationally re-
duca Staxatio
y ~ OF Increase Taxes.
The Democrats claim that the new
law VIII increase$the taxes. This is
not the case, because right in the be
ginning reduces the limit one-half,
before stated. But they answer
hat You are now going to assess
property at its actual value. On the
subject of assessment the new and
old law is nearly the same. The old
sslaWSSrequires personal property to be
assessed at$its actual value and real
proposed at it's true value. Substan-
tfaIl u no difference. The new law
followed the findings OF the tax com
mission, composed of Democrats and
Republicans alike.
he Real Objection.
So that the question is not that the
taxes VIII be increased and assess
$Snents# at actual value will be hurtful,
but the real lection, to the law is
that it viii compel the disclosing
and paying OF taxes of hundreds of
mill ions of personal property and real
:&estateSnow escaping taxation, and, of
s#cpurse, those who want to avoid pay
sSing tn cir Just proportion OF the taxes
are against the new law, as well as
some good people who aratmisled by
Democratic misrepresent ations. In
Connec dcut, here property is assess.
Led at It's actual value, the result has
been SO tisfactqry and the taxation
tsstth he Epeople could not be
nduced5 to change
nsEyst Ak laws which the Dem