The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-03-31

other the long desk and the record
 book dies. A copy of~ the Auditors
 Report, copy of the revenue laws, q
 copy of the revenue laws passed by the Legislature at it's recent session, and
 the long memoranda were on the table
 about which the officials gathered.
 There seemed to be no public interest
 in Union Springs in the meeting. A
 session of court of the Justice of the
 Peace would have gathered a larger crowd than that which watched the inauguration of what Governor Conner has called sene of the fmportant--one of the most important--iaws' of the was absolutely informal in it's pro- ceedinss in it's attitude and in It's dis cussions
 The explanation of the purposes of the law and of the Commission was made by Judge Mitchell The Commis- sion, he said. had not come to do any thing radical nor did t want the radical The Commissfon had exam- ined the books of the county and it had discovered many siaring ineQualities. So far as they were able to determine, many property owners were not paying their just proportion of taxes. while. in some instances, owners of property were paying much higher than their
  Town People Bear Burden. A similar condition to that which prevailed in Barbour County. in which the owners of town property paid high CT proportionate taxes than did the owners of farm property, was described out Of the meeting. This was not dis cussed in the Commission conference. 1t was not mentioned at all 1t was discernible, however, by a comparison n ba 3rrfr fnt. ~ke This comparison established the justice of the statement that owners of town property in Union Springs paid higher taxes which were nearer to the actual value of their property than dId those who owned country property.
 This condition may not be general in Alabama, butin Barbour County and in Bullock County, which have been the subject of so much taxation discussion. 1t prevails and is talked of by tax officials No convincing explanation has been given of that condition in which the farm owner has less q bur- den of taxation than the man who owns city property And as a general thing, the man in the country complains
 more about his taxes than does the | man in town.
 But the Commission, even if the
 members of the Commission knew of it. was not officially recognized. But the Bullock County tax memoranda l was produced and It's items spread out before the county commissioners to show the unequal distribution of the burden of taxation. as evidenced by 1 the Bullock county tax records. One 1 item showed that twenty acres of
 land had been bought for s400r The I owner of that land gave 1t in for tax l atton with other land to the amount of isS acres. On the whole lot the
 tax was placed at sSe0. The Com
 mission was not familiar with the
 situation of that land. nor of its val- ue, but the members took the position 1 that if twenty acres was worth s400 | 16S acres ought to be worth more | than SS60. One of the transfers | pointed out to the commission was for property at Fitzpatrick. A farm | of 300 acres near there sold for $1 300 and yet 1t was given in with another | item quoted was the sale of sixty-three
 acres of land for ts5o. This partic- | uiah piece of property was assessed for $406. The memorandum showed that Q lot in Union Springs had sold | for $500, but that 1t was assessed at | town of Union Springs was tbat of . house and lot for s1,550 and it was | given in for assessment at $750. | Some Remarkable Figures. | A piece of country property accord | ing to the memorandum, consisting of | 160 acres of land had been sold for | $2,155. The purchaser of this piece | of property had other lands. his to- | tai acreage amounting to 412 acres | Although he paid S2,156 for l60 acres | he gave 1t in for taxation as 312 acres l at S2I00. The memorandum showed | that a Union Springs lot had brought | s1.000 and 1t had bsen given in for | taxes at $500. X house and lot in | Union Springs which was bought for | $7,000 was assessed according to the records for $3.500.
 | Both the State Commissioners and | the County Commissioners took ccca- | sion to compliment the act of the | man who had bought the Feagin place | and had paid for 1t. He had then | given 1t in for taxes at $2,500. He l was paying taxes on s3.13 per cent. | of the actual value of the property. i All the revenue officials thought 1t an
 exceptional case.
 I He insisted himself of making the
 assessment that high, hardly be- lieve there Is such another case in the
 State," said Judge Singleton.
 'sIn securing these transfers, in l making the comparisons we are not trying to prove anybody dishonest" | said Judge Mitchell We are quoting | the figures 10 snow LHdL lAcES dTe I inequalities in your tax assessments. I We have done that. The figures from I your records show that In some inc | stances men are paying taxes as low
 as twenty-five per cent. of the actual value of their property. Some of | your property owners are paying on l thirty per cent. of the value. some on | forty per cent. some on fifty peS | cent. and in this one instance one l man is paying on as high as eighty | three per cent. This condition Is un- flair and unjust
 We are here asking you to. remove these inequalities. We are asking yol to fix your tax values so that one mar | will not have to pay greater pro l portion of taxes than snother Car
 we depend upon you to level your as sessmentsT' sa
 "We'n do it for our people, if vol eet the other, counties to do it," sait Commissioner Peniek.
 K To Reduce Tax Rate.
 Judge Singleton asked if the Com mission succeeded in making all les, cape" property pay taxes and in mak ing all tax payers pay taxes in equa
 proportion, if enough revenue woulC | hn .~naI 4pko fba Gtafa Traa (,