Kingsbury County independent. (DeSmet, Kingsbury County, S.D.) 1894-1929, 1906-05-11
THAT RAILROAD TAX RECORD.


THAT RAILROAD TAX RECORD.
The greatest effort by Gov. Elrod
Ia his speech ia this city last Friday
evening was to show that Hon. Coe
/. Crawford was instrumental in re-
ducing the railroad assessments dur
ing his term of office from 1893 to
1896. To assist in creating this false
impression Elrod quoted a long
string of figures and statements.
which he claimed were taken from
the records. There is not a record of
the board in existence that cannot be
taken and prove a bad record for a
member Of the board of assessment,
if the record is only quoted in part,
Il part taken here and a part taken
there. Even Elrod voted last year to
reduce the assessment of one Of the
best lines the G. 81 NV. R'y has in
this state, the Cakes line. Because
EIrod voted, as did the other mem
bers of the board, to reduce that
valuation, it does not follow that the
total railroad assessment was reduc-
ed. In fact, we know hat the assess
ment was raised in 1905, as was the
case when Hon. Coe Crawford was
Oh the board, except one year when
the total valuation was reduced in
1896. But here are the figures for
the years Crawford was on the board
and they viii show for themselves.
1893, railroad valuation S8,938,566.
1894, railroad valuation S9,1S9,504.
1895, railroad valuation S9,193,247.
1896, railroad valuation $9,133,583.
But, to make a fair comparison, the
assessment of lands during the same
period should be taken into consider
alton. 1t may not look good to Mr..
Elrod, but it is only fair
1893, land assessed per acre $3.50.
1894, land assessed per acre SAG.
1895, land assessed per acre S4.46.
1896, land assessed per acre 4.32.
Thus we find that while Crawford
was on the board the valuation of
land decseased the second year 43
cents per acre, and that land valua-
tons decreased the fourth year IA
cents per acre. Another comparison
might be in order.
Land per acre, 1905. .S6.31
Land per acre, 1896. .I.32
This little comparison did not look
good to Elrod, and therefore he con-
veniently forgot to mention it.
But let us make another compari.
son a little nearer home. The valua
tion of railroads and farm lands in
Kingsbury county during Crawford's
term were as follows:
Railroads Per Acre Land Val.
1S93-S326, 706 $5.9l 81 04,49l
1891 1867 4.59 1898, 979
1895 326,7o6 404. 1873 60.
1856 30s,435 406 1886, O46
Here we find that in Kingsbury
county under Crawford term of office
our farm lands were three times val
. ued at a less figure than in 1893; that
in 1896, the last year of Crawford's
term, lands IN this county had been
reduced ia valuation for taxing pur-
poses IS cents peracre. During Craw
ford's term land owners of Kingsbury
county were saved the taxes on 1865,
6S6.00 valuation, and during the same
period the railroads were saved taxes
on a valuation Of only $l8,26S. The
railroads we're valued at about one
seventh OF the farm land valuation,
but their reduction in valuation was
d long way from being o~ne-seyenth
as much as that given to farm lands.
If anything, the railroads got the
worst end of the deal.
But, this, too, looked bad to Mr..
Elrod, and he forgot to mention it.
There are a great many points
about the assessment that would
prove Of interest, but the governor
forgot to mention them.