Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1906-10-18

items In loWa--Port
Hon. B. r. Carroll, auditor Of state. In
opening the campaign in his home coun-
ty, discussed the arguments presented IN
support Of the democratic-railroad al
lance In Iowa, and completely exposed
the so-called statistics as presented by
Candidate Claude Porter in his speeches.
Mr. Carroll gave the facts and figures
from his intimate knowledge OF the al
fairs Of state. He showed that the DEM
ocratic attack on republican analrs IN
Iowa with regard to the assessments ana
taxation has no foundation Whatever, put
that while the local assessors have been
putting I'D the taxable value of farm LAND
10 per cent, the republican state officials
have raised railway assessments ~ per
cent. In his speech, Mr.. Carroll SAID:
Omitted the Figures.
The democratic candidate for govern
or In his opening speech at OttumWa at
tackled the republican party In It's assess
ment of railway property In Iowa pc.
tween the years 1880 and l9i he quoteo
figures In substantiation OF the STATE,
ments made by him, but In doing so TOOK
his data from the thirty-third annuai re-
port of the assessed value OF railway
property in this state, which does not
include the assessment for the last TWO
years. Why he should have done this
I am not aware, as the thirty-fourth an,
nual report has been in print tor a u1i,
year and the figures Tor the tnlrt
report were made public through the
press of the state Aug. and could nave
been had by him by addressing a letter
to the secretary of the executive couh-
Gil requesting the same. uo
He quotes the assessed Value per Hihe
of the railways of Iowa in 1880 and states
that the increase since that date mas
been less than 1000 per mile, when, as
a matter Of fact, the value per mile m do s
ha
than S1,346, or q per cent larger, not
withstanding the fact that In 1880 proper,
ty was supposed to be assessed at acluai
value, while now the law provides that
it shall be assessed at one-fourth of the
actual value. .
The total assessable value of the rail-
way property Of the state for 1900 as
compared with that of 1880 shows an IN
crease OF about 155 per cent, while the
increase in mileage is only about 1O4 per
cent.
Assessments and Earnings.
He further quotes figures to show the
relation between assessments ana gross
earnings Of railways as follows: FER
cent of assessments to gross earnings
1850, 1O3 per cent; 1894, los per cent; lSoi,
SO per cent. The assessment per mile LOT
1880 was S4997; for 1884, $3.50, and Tor
1904, SSH 1t will be observed that at
each period above referred to the assess
ment per mile was greater than at the
preceding date. 1t therefore follows that
ment to gross earnings, as OF the dates
mentioned, was due to an increase IN
earnings and not to decrease In assess
ments.
decrease in assessment every time there
is slight change in gross earnings IN
order that the relation of assessment 10
earnings should always remain the same I
To give an illustration, using some OF
the same figures he has used, let US com
pare the years 1894 and 1895. In 1884 the
assessed value per mile was $,Z92 ana
the assessment was 1905 1 per cent o. snf
was s., 232 but was 14 per cent OF the
gross earnings, being due to the heavy
falling off In earnings. In order TO nave
maintained the same relation between
assessments and gross earnings as ex-
listed the previous year, 1t would nave
sessment to s4,4n per mile.
Democratic Assessments.
Is II TO be understood that Mr.. Porter
takes exception because the council In
than $3.50 per mile in the assessed value
of railways of the state in order TO meet
a falling off in gross earnings!
He can find interesting food for demo,
cratic thought by comparing the second
assessment of railway property under
Governor Boies with the last assessment
made by him. as follows: In 1881 the as
sessed value per mile was SS,SS, 40, For
=
mile, while the gross earnings showed
an increase during the same period OF
s7O1 per mile The relation of assessment
to gross earnings decreased from llS per
cent to 101 per cent.
While in the main the figures quoted
by Mr.. Porter are correct, they are not
valuable for the purposes for which he
seeks to use them and serve to confuse
rather than enlghten.
Would Mean Reduction.
How can there be any constant or sim
liar relation existing between assessment
and gross earnings of railways unless
the assessment Is reduced every time the
earnings fall off, and is increased every
time the earnings increase?
To illustrates: The assessment per mile
OF railway has been increased every year
for the last six assessments. The gross
earnings were less in 1903 than In 19OZ.
and less in 1905 than in 1904 Would MT;
Porter contend that the council should
have decreased the assessment in 1903 and
1906 so as to maintain the same relation
between assessments and gross earnings
as for the corresponding, years previous
As to Net Earnings.
He also quotes statistics as to the re-
| lation Of assessments to net earnings, q
| stnl more deceptive thing, as net earn
| ings depend not so much upon income as
| upon expenditures and methods of book
! keeping. For example: From 1905 to
| 1904 the gross earnings of all railroads
of the state increased little more than
81 10000 while the net earnings decreased
| more than 100000 and the net earn
ings increased more than $4,000. How
| can the same or similar ratios between
| assessments and gross and net earnings
| be maintained when the earnings fiuc-
| tuate as above7
| The fallacy of his argument and the
use of the figures quoted, except to show
| that It is impossible to adopt any fixed
! rule as q basis for assessment Of rail-
| way property without running counter ia
| every other method. is clearly shown
| by the above illustrations and could be
| shown by many others of similar ma
/ ture.
| Another Fallacy.
| He also quotes figures to show thai
| the assessed value of certain railway
property is but little more now than II
| was twenty years ago. 1t Is scarcely
| fair to attempt to make comparisons now
| with twenty years ago, as then we were
| presumed to assess property at actua
| value while now we are supposed to as
sess il at only one-fourth of the actua
value. However, In 1886 the average as
| sessed value per mile of all railways ir
| the state was 81, 435. The assessed value
| per mile in 1906 is $6,343. The actual val
| ue per mile In 1906 is, therefore, S25 81
as compared with "a, 435 per mile In 1886
! We leave II for the man who raised tn,
issue to determine whether or not Their,
| trar xxrhfa oh he a,