The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-03-30
GLASS TALKS BACK.
CONTINUED from Page one,

| -
The commission after a painstak-
J ing and full investigation determined
what property in Wyandotte county
was used in the daily operation of the
several railways and what was not
and the values were based upon the
J law and facts. As to the charges
stated in nebulouS terms, which Mr..
! Stubs fathers and endorses, that Mr..
drummer and / favored the packing
houses at the hearing upon the appeal
by several of the companies in 1909
from the action of the county board
of equalization in fixing and increasing
the assessment of those companies,
answer that the charge is false and
that the action and discussion of the
commission in each and every case
was unanimous. The members of the
commission were in entire accord and
any attempt on the part of Joe Huff
man, Mr.. Trickett or Walter Roscoe
Stubs to create the impression that
Samuel Howe differed from Mr.. Crum-
mer and me in any of those cases, is a
deliberate attempt to falsify the rec
ord. This also holds true as to every
ruling of the board since its organiza-
tlon- A statement as to one of the
packing house cases will serve to IL
lustrate all Swift & Co. was assessed
for purposes of taxation by the deputy
assessor in 1909 at 81, 1850.
The county board of equalization
ed the amount of the assessment to
$1,7O6,OOO without any omitted prop
! erty having been added to the proper
ty returned by the company and val
ued by the deputy. From this order of
the equalization board of Wyandotte
county an appeal was taken and pros
ecuted by Swift & Co., to the tax
commission sitting as the state board
of equalization. The members of the
commission were unanimous in hold
s1rr hoe I, L IL
mad not been listed could not be add
ed to the assessed value in a hearing
on equalization and that the only sub
ject of inquiry was as to the correct
ness of the valuation of the property
which the company had listed and
which the deputy assessor had as
sessed.
Under the proofs in the case the
| commission, acting as state board of
equalization. fixed the value of the
property at s1,556,350 which was the
same as the deputy assessor had
found Much contention was INDUCED
| in by Representatives of the county
that the value of the finished product
which the company had on hand the
first day of March, 1909, ought to be
considered and determined on the
| equalization and earning and ought to
be added to the assessment of the COM
pany by the commission acting as a
state board of equalization. The con-
clusion of the commission from the
evidence adduced was that no attempt
had been made by the company to list
the finished product and that no at
tempt had been made by the local as
SCISSOR to add the value of the finished
product as omitted property to the
company's assessment. The only duty
under such state of facts, which de-
volved upon the commission. acting
as a state board of equalization, was
to ascertain and fix the true value of
| the property which had been listed.
| This was done, and under the evil
| dence the commission found the true
value OF the listed property to be as
above stated. At the hearing the
com omission indicated plainly and in
| express terms that if the authorities
of the county desired to test the ques-
! ton of the taXability of the finished
product which the company had on
hand on March 1. 1909, the matter
could be tested quite easily and called
attention to the fact that the board of
| county commissioners. the county
clerk and county assessor were each
| clothed with the power to add to the
assessment rolls all omitted property.
The suggestion of the tax commission
was subsequently acted upon by the
authorities of Wyandotte county. At
! least an action of mandamus was
| brought in the supreme court of Kan
Sas by Joseph Taggert, as county at
torney of Wyandotte county, against
E. M. Holcomb, county clerk of Wyan-
dotte county, Kansas, to compel him to
enter upon the tax rolls taxable prop
erty omitted from the assessors re-
turns. This property was the finished
product of the Kansas City packers
which they had on hand on March 1,
1909. The defendant was ordered TO
enter such property on the tax rolls.
See S1st Kansas, page S79.
Can't Add Property to Rolls.
'It was the opinion of the tax COM
mission that, barring all questions
of the taxability of the finished pros
duct, that it had no power to sitting
as a state board of equalization to add
any property to the assessment rolls
which had not been listed, even
though it were shown that such prop
erty existed. The taxability of the fin
ished product held on the LIST of
March, was a question not before the
tax commission acting as a state board
of equalization, for its decision in the
packing house cases. 1t is true that
the question was there discussed and
it is also true that the Ohio statute in
relation to the assessment of mer-
chants and manufacturers from
which our statute was copied in 1875,
had been construed prior to its enact
ment here, to exempt the finished pro-
duct of manufacturers on hand on
the 1st day of March from assassin ent
and taxation. 1t is also true the COM
mission considered. in the absence of
a ruling on this point by our own SUI
preme court, that the Ohio interpre-
tation was binding and had so stated
in its instructions to taxing officers
1t is also true that as soon as the SUI
preme court passed upon the HolcOmb
case and held that the finished product
on hand on the first day of March
must be listed for taxation, the COM
mission at once issued a circular of in
struction to conform to the courts rul
ing. I leave it to lawyers and judges