Iowa state bystander. [volume] (Des Moines, Iowa) 1894-1916, 1906-10-19
TRUTH AS TO IOWA ASSESSMENTS
ON RAILWAYS AND OTHER PROPERTY
STATE AUDITOR CARROLL PUTS UP THE oFrc,s,
AGAINST THE aocEATlc ASSERTIONS Ascoh
Railway Taxsion Mere r., q
Proper.y-Whs. R.uuhH.-, NY 0os
Hens in lo~.-Pere .r's Ars1mens Exposed

\ SSSS IN tV~6-rsE
Hon q r Carroll, auditor Of State. il
1razszg sAs campaign * MS home ce11
IT. discussed the arguments presented !:
szgpa-y OF the Observation-Disclosures =.
9Eg1es T. Iowa. and co-agsessly expose
( gt14 sao-EsEl=i statistics rs presented 81
4 Candidate CEz1Es Porter & MS SSEeeG1=-s
/ Liz Carroll gave tie facts and 1gEEes
; from hIs Intimate E-Qula4ge Of -ze Al
/ fairs o. state He showed r@at TIE dem
( ccgAtGc attack Co republican affairs !
Iowa with regard 10 the assessments aEsG
/ tz1At-oz has I'D foundation whatever. s1'
/ INA, Vile the LEGAL assessors have beer
Z .Gtt5ng W TIE taxable vaEl= o. farm land
( I. r.4r caat- the republican STATE officials
have raised railway assessments = -.
7 es... l. lis sreach- M Carroll sad:
Omitted tire Figures.
tt. ds-s1.c.2-fc czzt5 5ats to- govern
Or La his cEHe1El-g speech az 0..IE1l|a AZ
czckta5 tAa republican parry Ii IFS assess
rz=1t QS raj lay property il Iowa I@'
tween E11= years 1859 G-i -s.E EfE 9@l0la1.
:5gI-@z In EElstzDtizIGz a t1e stale
zlE-s1s made e- him. b74- il doing so tI'QA-
rs data sr5Zl 7-1a EG5rtg-ta4rG annual re
part - c1e assessed T22-s d railway
E-Cp&--y in tbs STATE E-llc1 Goes EsSS
ITc.E&s ths ASSESSMENT for tie Last 1AS'
Pears Why NJ should have G1s--= EEalS
I'D 10. aware, rs TIE t1irtE--c--rl al
aEcaE -s-sort hzs Lss1 IN print fcE : .g-l
year ard TIE figures for I--s t---Et III u
Report were made g1-l.c t-r1Us5 eHT
Er@s5 Of -ls state aug AID c'5U-1 --aAs-
been ast ~ him by addressing les-@T
10 ne secretary Of tGa executive c-2521-
I'll -EsQ1sSzi1g the same.
He quotes the ASSESSED vg4Ee Pr I-Et1
Of the r4tlHayS Of Iowa in -TS9 and s12-Es
that -hs increase since s1at 1Ats les
bean Lass than g. jpg Esr nile. when as
= matter o. fact. the TA41s Der EsE-= 10.
Ea= Jsa- 1856 oEg- HAT Of -s:.s Is more
than gy34s. o. e yer CENT larger Eo--
Ez.tzs-a-s5sag the fact that in lSsE proper
~ was supposed 20 o. assessed at actual
yslua. while Eo~ the Law provides E14-
IL slzl BE- ASSESSED a. o-s-to-rlh q the
ac-zaZ value
The total sssessahle va1na Of the rail-
way F.ogs-ty O. the state so- lzes Is
compared with that o. lSA shows An IN
crease 0. aboe, Ii par cent while ne
Increase II ni-s4gs IS ca2y about - l&-
cent
Assessments and Earnings.
Ee further quotes figures % show the
relation between assessments and sC9ss
earnings Of railways as follows: Pa
cen, Of Assessments 20 gross earnings.
lsss iGs Per cent: li@4. rs l.@- cent: l.s-
-ss, vas slse7: fo- 1:SL s. and for
each period above referred 10 the asses
g-scs6.ns date. I, therefore follows tia.
any Increase n the %! cent o. assess
men. 70 gross earnings as OF the dates
mentioned. was due % Al increase In
earnings and 70. 20 decrease IN assess
ments-
Would Mr.. Porter favor sa Increase o.
decrease in assessment. eve-y tine there
Is a slight change n gross earnings IN
order .ha- the relation Of assessment 10
earnings should always remain the saLs2
To give an Illustration. using some o.
the same figures he has use-d. let Us co-n-
pare the years 1884 and lS5- In 1874 ths
assessed value Fer nile was go and
the assessment wa. rs pa cent Of rh= |
gross earnings In 195 the assessment
was So, but vas Ia ger cent Q, the
gross earnings, being due to the heavy |
falling of In earnings In order % hare
and gross earnings as sI-
Lsted the previous year. It would have
Deen necessary 10 have reduced the as
20 s4-A1 Ter mile.
Democratic Assessments.
Is Il 20 be understood that Ar. Porter
.skss exception because the council In
IS failed 10 make 2 reduction OF more
han $50 per mile IN the assessed value
}. railways OF the state il orser 10 meet
/ falling OF II gross ear1EngSe
.rs;Ec thought by comparing the second
assessment OF railway property under
Governor Bo.es with the last assessment,
made By him. as follows: In lssl the as
ssSSEC y-CS -Ll2RS Was 1[ |
sc It was 5,e.szz. or decrease Of :. Per
nile. wh5ls tn gross earnings showed
n increase during TIE same qs-i1d Of
ia ger mile. The relation Of assessment
o gross earnings decreased from Is PET I
e1t TO ~ .e- ceot.
While in the main the figures quoted
. NJ. Porter are correct they are ro-
alma5le for the pt-ruses for which he
seks to use them. and serve 10 confuse
ather than tlAghteC-
Would Mean Reduction.
How can there he any constant or sim
ar relation existing between assessment |
nd gross earnings Of railways Unless
ne assessne-. IS reduced every tine the
a-u!ngs fall OF. and is Increased every !
.E-2e the earnings increase?
TO Illustrate: The assessment. Fer mile !
railway nag been increased every year
0r the last SIX assessments. The gross
trr!rgs were less in I.S than in 1872, |
nd less in Ia5 than IN Is1:. Would Nj
orter contend that the council should |
aYe decreased the assessment in 1873 and
- SO as 20 maintain the same relation
e.Heen assessments and gross earnings
$ for the corresponding years previous?
AS to Net Earnings. :
He also quotes statistics as to the re-
.t!on Of assessments to net earnings. q
i'll more deceptive thing, as net earn ,
.gs depend not so much upon income as {
ro1 expenditures and methods of book ,
coping. For example: From 1875 to
"a the gross earnings of all railroads |
+ the state Increased little more than
5000. while the net earnings decreased | ;
ore than 100000 and the net earn | .
gs Increased more than s25.HJ1 How :
IN the same or similar ratios between | :
and gross and net earnings r
, maintained when the earnings fluc- {
ate as above?
The fallacy Of his argument and the a
e of the figures quoted, except to show | ..
at It Is impossible TO adopt any fixed | !,
lie as basis for assessment Of rail-
ay property without running counter TO | 9
cry other method is clearly shown =
she above illustrations and could be :,
own by many others Of similar ma !;
re
Another Fal!aey. r
He also quotes figures 10 show that Q
q assessed value-of certain railway | Z
ope-ty is but little more now than it | ?
IS twenty years ago. It is scarcely | +
ir to attempt TO make comparisons now
th twenty years ago, as then We were a
esuEned to assess property at actual | c
.lue. while now We are supposed to as 8
IS II a, only one-fourth Of the actual | a
.lue However. in 1856 the average as =
ssed value per mile of all railways in | $
e state was $4.s3aS The assessed value q
Z mile in 1906 is IS .3.3 The actual val =
per mile in 1915 Is. therefore. sgs7s =