Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1906-10-18
TRUTH AS TO IOWA ASSESSMENTS
ON RAILWAYS and OTHER PROPERTY
STATE AUDITOR CARROLL PUTS UP THE RECORD
AGAINST DEMOCRATIC ASSERTIONS
Railway Taxation Other
Under AdmInistra
iowa-Poreer s Argument Exposed.

'er's Argument Exposed.
es of property. There would be no need
LOT Mr.. Porter's commission IL the Bryan
plan be adopted. / am not convinced
that the people are ready to adopt Mr.,
Bryans plan of federal ownership OF
trunk lines and state ownership of local
lines. nor am / convinced that they are
ready to adopt the democratic suggestion
ot another perpetual commission Our
experience has been that more commits
slonF means more expenses and oncs
established they go on forever.
Increase of Assessments.
AS to recent assessments OF railway
property, permit me to say that in ten
years the assessed value of railway prop
erty has been increased more than 40
per cent and that the increase exceeds
~ per cent during the last FIVE years.
Mr.. Porter takes exception to the
method OF assessing railway property.
Inc Jaw provides that in determining the
value OF railway property the executive
council shall take into consideration the
gross earnings per mile for the year end
ing Jan. l, preceding. and any and all
c comer matters "a necessary to enable said
sessment This has been the law ever
since the code of 1873 and Is the law un-
ger which every assessment since tho
days OF Carpenter and Kirkwood has
been made.
Porter Offered No Bill.
Mr.. Porter was member of tho legi,-
iature for eight years and / am not
aware that he ever made any attempt
70 nave the law repealed. VIII he In
this campaign announce the specific rule
or method by which he would assess
railway property, apply the method to
the iowa roads and announce the re-
suits? 1t will not answer to say that he
would provide for a commission. What
method would he have the commission
follow? II gross earnings exclusively, or
net earnings exclusively are to be taken
a ant
sion or even executive council Is needed
"A mere hgurer could determine the valua
Assessment Of Real Property.
Much has been said concerning the as
sessment of real property of the state,
especially as to the assessment Of 1903
lands from 1901 to 1902 caused a consid-
cradle Increase in the assessment Of the
latter year; The average value of the
lands of the state as reported by the
various county boards of review to the
auditor of state for the year 1903 was
S4z.H per acre. 1t was apparent to the
council that some counties were assessed
TOO high, or others too low. 1t, there
!ore, undertook to adjust and equalize
the values between counties After the
council had completed its work of equal
izauon, It found that while the ASSESS
mehts OF very large per cent of the
counties had been changed some in
creased and others reduced, as to the
aggregate value of the lands Of the en-
tire state, there was practically no
change-the increase being only cents
| per acre, or less than IT of 1 per cent
IN value. We accepted the reported VAL
ue or the lands of the state as a whole,
out equalized as between counties.
Guided BY Safe Counsel.
In the matter of adjustment or equali-
zatlon we were not guided wholly by our
own judgment. Letters were addressed
| to several hundred real estate men, from
| -FOUR to eight in each county, also the
county auditors and members of boards
| or supervisors, asking their Judgment as
70 the relative value of the lands of their
| joining counties. BY these means we Be-
cured the judgment of from twenty to
| forty men as to the relative values OF
| the lands of the various counties. From
| the information obtained and from our
| own Judgment concerning values, the
equalization of 1913 was made as above
| shown.
Reduced Land Assessments.
In 1906 the reported average value Of
| the land of the state was $41.76, or
reduction of "a cents per acre from the
| value of 1903, The council believing that
| there had been decrease in the value Of
| land from January, 1903 to January, 1905.
| made further reduction of s1.4S per
| acre, leaving the assessed value per acre
| $4o.2S. as against 1910 for 1903. Adding
the value of new buildings erected dur
value for 1905 sos per acre. enc or an n
crease in five years of 1875 per cent as
| against an increase in the total assess
ment of railway property for. the same
period OF more than 80 per cent.
| Sample Railroad FaIsehood.
Mr.. Porter admits that the assessed
| value Of railway property has been large
| ly increased in recent years and states
| as follows:
1T might. also be we'll to know d
railroads has been increased in the la0
| four years, that for every one millioa
| dollars OF increased value of the rafSs
ways for taxation the value OF othR
| property of this state has been increased
| over eight million dollars, thus increas-
| ing the burdens of the farmers of lowe
eight times. as much as the burdens Of
| Let us analyze this statement and see
If It is correct. The increase in the as
sessed value Of all property other than
is from 1902 to 1906, is less than fifty-one
| millions of dollars. The increase In the
| assessed value Of railroads alone for the
sano period is over eleven millions in
dollars. In other words. the increase In
| other property than railroads is less than
A60 for each 81 of increase In railroads
the democratic candidate for governor.
| Comparative Assessments.
It should be remembered that at thu
beginning of the period, that is. in 1904
than ten times that OF the railroads, so
| tnat the increase on Otner property
| had been at the same rate as the Increase
| in value of railway property II would
| have been more than so on other prop
erty to 81 on railroads. when, as a mat
| ter of fact instead Of ten to one II Is
| less than FIVE to one.
To make 1t more clear, permit me to
say that the increase in value of rail-
way property during the last four years
Is us per cent, while on other property
| II is only sS per cent.
| The statement Is not true for the
further reason that the increased burden
on other property is not all borne by the
| farmers, but Is borne In part by city
| property. telegraph, interurban, and all
kinds OF personal property.
| II is incorrect for the further reason,
| as has already been shown, that the coun-
| ell did not Increase but reduced the as
sessment on real estate from what II was
| as returned by the county boards of re-
| view and accepted the assessment of per-
sonal property without change The
council did not make the increase.
L