Semi-weekly herald., 1908-10-29

Suuuhy morning JOnu +. COStOn,
forced by public opinion. had signed
article in the Democrat In which he
attempted TO defend his position us
county assessor. but he made Ia
mentable failure. Mr.. Coston, how.
ever. is shrewd and clever in phrase
ology. having SO long thrived ON de-
ception, and unless one takes time
to study portions of his argument,
might be led TO accept his statements.
There are some portions of Mr.. Cos.
toms article that are SO palpably mis-
leading that II is hardly necessary to
refer to them.
In the first place Mr.. Coston tries
to make 1t appear that the articles
being printed in The Herald are writ
ten by an outsider. Granting this to
be the case, does 1t make the truth
one iota less welcome. Facts are
facts. no matter by whom written, but
Mr.. Coston Is informed that the rec
ords are open to the regular staff of
The Herald and everything appearing
In The Herald is from the records and
we can prove 1t. Mr.. Coston hopes
to dodge the issue by laying the ex-
pose on the shoulders of an outsider.
He says What credence can be given
to such a man as this" The voters
are not asked to take the statements
appearing in The Herald. but we would
a good deal rather every voter could
and would take the time to look up
the records. Mr.. Coston says The
Herald garbled figures to mislead.
This is wIlul falsehood. We have not
garbled figures but let us show the
cunning OF Mr.. Coston's figures In or
der to mislead farmers and make them
believe Hopkins assessment was
higher than that made by him. We
quote Mr.. Coston:
Hopkins, Assessor-The average
value OF agricultural lands In La
Plata county for the year 1904.
was $17.32.
CostOn, ABsessor-The average
value of agricultural lands In La
Plata county for 1907 was $15.10.
These averages are made after
deducting values for suburban
lands. which for 1904 was 56S
acres. valuation $35.157; In 1907.
Lib acres. valuation S1O5.420. Mr..
Farmer how does this affect you!
Now look at the cunning. In order
10 hn pf 70 rrr,
values Mr.. Coston increases the su-
burban lands placed by Hopkins at 56S
acres. valued at $35.l7o. to lib acres
valued at $105,420. Now is there any
sane person In Durango or La Plata
county that for one moment believes
the suburban lands adjoining Durango
have more than doubled since 1904?
It's very clever trick for Mr.. Coston
to add 546 acres to the suburban list,
the land being valued at 500 an acre
on an average, and by doing this he
greatly reduces the average value of
the remaining lands. This is de-
ception practiced by smooth manipu-
lators OF figures. Again, we quote Mr..
Coston:
There have been. during the last
three years, 10000 acres of new
land placed upon the tax list of
this county. making an increased
valuation Of $46S,2OO.
Probably not one of the Democrat
readers stopped to dissect the above
paragraph. Fifty thousand acres val
ued at S46S.000. Did any Of you stop
to figure the value of this new acre
age? We did. 1t is a trifle over 81
per acre. Now. this Is all right. Most
OF It is new and undeveloped, but II
increases the total acreage. Thus you
take the old and new acreage as to
tai and average the assessment, the
new acreage only being a trifle over
50 per acre, 1t naturally reduces the
average value Of farm lands. MIR. Cos
ton does not tell you about this little
trick however. 1t is not part of his
game of deception. If you do not be
heve this just go to the records and
compare the assessed valuation OF
lands today all over the county with
the same valuation OF four years ago
This will tell the tale. In one in
stance Mr.. Coston takes away over
500 acres of high praced land and
adds $4,000 acres of low priced land.
Why wouldn't the average be reduced
Mr.. coston you are certainly slick and
know how to fool the farmer. Wish
everyone could 90 over the records.
Mr.. Coston then goes on to say that
whom the American Smelling company
purchased the local smelling plant It
paid 100000 for the works and then
proceeds to average the percentage of
yearly assessments. adding the follow
Ing:
These estimates are based on
the first cost of 100000 to the
4. 8. & r. Co.. and do not In
clude new and additional improve
ments In construction of power
plant, new stacks and furnaces. Of
noe and assay building. ETC.. which
= - 49,. - mn nm ,~.o-o 49,.