The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-02-09
Real Estate Assessment Only
Once in Four Years.
This Is Feature of a Bill Passed
by House.
DEBATE Is EXCITING.
Members Talk of AbOlishing the
State Tax Commission.
Say That Board NEEDLES Too
Much in County Affairs.

The assessment of Kansas real estate
1 will be taken only every four years
j hereafter if the senate coneurs IN the
| bill recommended for passage by the
house committee of the whole Wednes-
day night. Consideration of this meas
ure occupied the house during the en-
| tire night session. Instead of dividing
on party lines the east and the west
took issue. Kiowa and Kingman
| counties against Shawnee and Bour-
bon. The westerners held out for two
year assessment
One feature of the night session was
| the debate between those two Topeka
real estate men. Olinger and Kelley,
| the former favoring the quadrenniai
and the latter the biennial assessment.
Another feature was the sPeech by
Speaker Buchanan in favor OF the
| from COWley said:
81 am surprised to hear the argu-
ment made on the floor of this house
to support frequent assessments on the
ground that Kansas land fluctuates IN
value. Such statements published ana
| sent abroad hurt our state I believe
that Kansas farm land values are the
most substantial and stable thing in
the state They have steadily AMI
slowly increased in value for many
years. Town property may fluctuate
and bank stock that sells today for
200 cents on the dOlldfs=ndy lOi1lOIEosN
be worth but ten cents. But farm land
in Kansas represents something that IS
firm and stable as the earth Itself.
Farm land is gilt edged security any
where, but with city property 1T is diff
lferent.
Il bought a couple of lots for $lUO
apiece in Winfield many years ago ana
there came a boom in city property IN
that part of town and I was offered
81 500 for my two lots. A real estate
man urged me to hold them a little
longer and he would get $4,000 for them.
I held them The boom shifted to an
other part of town and l finally sold
those lots for $50 apiece. 1t Is not so
with Kansas farm. Such fluctuations
are impossible. I think the four year
assessment is practical ara proper; fne
two year proposition is an insult TO
Kansas land
Three western representatives i'll a
row, then good-naturedly attacked the
speaker with questions. Davis of Klowa,
Brown OF Kingn3an and Tyler of Fin
ney The judge made reply in the
same fashion.
The trouble over the bill, which was
the tax committee measure, started
when Allen of Wyandotte moved to
amend by striking out the word qua
drenniar' and substituting biennla!.
The a1nen1ment was finally voted down
- to Sc. a
Davis of .Kiowa. took a shot at OIL
niger Of Shawnee and Goddard OF
Leavenworth who were advocating a
four year assessment on behalf of the
farmers, when he said: Il do not want
the farmers who live in Topeka ana
Leavenworth to tell us western farm
ers who live in the country what is
good and what is bad for our farms.
Newlin, of Douglas, had expected that
the farmers of the west would be strong
for the four year assessment and was
surprised to find them lined up behind
an amendment introduced by the mem
Der from Kansas City. Kan, IN the
interest of city property owners. If
the westerners want the two year as
sessment,'' he said, 1.-The fasteners
ought to let them have 1T. was at
first opposed to the anne nd:nent because
/ thought it worked a hardship on the
western farmer. 1 should consider the
two year assessment an advantage to
the people in the eastern part Of the
state
"What in the hades right has the
tax commission to interfere with this
legislature in its work of drafting bills
and enacting them into laws ?? Thus
asked Boyd of Republic county in the
house Wednesday afternoon during the
debate over the tax committee bill
granting the board of county commits
siorers the right to appoint tax asses
sors in all the counties of the state.
eff I had my way" Boyd continued,
at would abolish the state tax COM
mission 1t mixes into county affairs
as we'll as legislative and exercises al
together too much power Fhe old
soldier from Republic county was sore.
He did not like the committee bill. He
wanted the office of assessor and the
board of review abolished in counties
of less than 10000 population.
So did Brown of <Kingman. and he
had a substitute bill that provide ed that
county clerks should also assume the
duties of assessor and appoint deputies
if necessary. The Brown substitute
was killed on an almost straight party
vote
house took part in the debate for and
against the old question of whether or
not it were best to have county asses
sors and nearly the entire afternoon
session was consumed in discussing
and amending this bill before it was
finally passed. and then the amended
section provided that assessors shall be
optional in counties of less than 10000
population.
The bill provides that the board of
county commissioners at their Jan
uary meeting in 1913 and annually
thereafter, may appoint a county as
SCISSOR who is to hold his office at the
pleasure of the board and be paid a
salary fixed by the board. In counties
where the county commissioners decide
by vote in regular meeting that a
county assessor is not needed. the
county clerk shall fill the duties of
that office The members of the house
took deep and abiding interest in the
county assessor bill; they could not
seem to agree upon it's provisions.
Some of the members wanted the Of
flee preserved in their counties AM
some did not. The present law pro-
vides for this office in all counties CT
more than 1900 population.
Malone of Rawlins, Davis of Kiowa,
Keene Of Bourbon, Kyle of Marion.
Graham of Jackson, and Orr of Atcl1-
ison were among those who took part
in the debate The house simply could
not seem to agree on county assessor
bill.
Another thing about the committee
bill that the members took exceptions
to was that section relating to the