The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1912-02-22

other subjects OF taxation for the
State at large. IL would. no doubt be
necessary 20 leave some few other
subjects TO the localities. pOssib bly, the
cities. for a while though the Tux re-
port does not suggest that upon the
above basis cities would be the losers
put IN this L disagree with the report,
ana think some OF the cities would
! rose. ana would have 60 be provided
iOrs put there is absolutely nothing
IN the report which would show any
such losses as indicated through the
press, nor would such losses exist upon
a showing Of all the facts Perhaps
one or Two cities, which in their taxa
Die SUBJECTS are most unusual exceD-
uchs' would lose largely. but there is
no reason why this cannot be abun-
Gantly made up, and yet carry out
the plan.
/ Segregation cannot under the Con
sutution: be had until after the 1st
/ day Of January, 1913. and as All tax
| liens begin on that date. il will NOT he
practicable for segregation to be put
INTO erect until the year 1914. SO that
me next Assembly will be in time for
this purpose.
Must Get the Facts.
1t is, therefore, insisted that this
committee urge upon the Assembly
the importance and necessity of oh
tanning the necessary facts upon which
to base a segregation law. and to
nave such a law embodied in a bill,
ready Tor the next Assembly. 1t is
greatly to be regretted that such facts
were not submitted in the Tax Com
mission report so that a proper bin
might be at once prepared and passed
since equalization cannot be obtained
Dy any commission or otherwise until
after 1915, because real estate assess
ments cannot be disturbed until then
Communications from every part of
the state make il clear to me that the
people demand segregation, and 1
earnestly urge that such action as
above indicated be taken.
AS TO my views upon a Tax Com
mission or any sort, for the purpose
OF equalization of assessments there
is absolutely no need for such a body
for the following reasons: First. there
is nothing to equalize but tangible
personal property, such as live stock
and household furniture, and the tax
derived from this source is too fncon-
siderable to Justify such expensive ma
chinery. Also the tax from this source
would largely come from those sub
tects that should be taxed as lightly
as possible, since it touches those who
are often least able to bear it If
there Is 10 be a Tax Commission, or
tax commissioner, why not wait until
the real estate can be reassessed in
1915, so that there will be something
for il TO work upon.
Second. Tax Commissions have not
proved successful, and usually cause
,reGt dissatisfaction and complaint
:mOng the people. In spite of the
act that West Virginia is cited in
ne tax report, as an example OF the
NorN ings OF a Tax Commission il has.
1ad the erect in that Stat, OF caus-
Ak political upneaNal and over
lr"" OF tSe party in power respon-
ihf' Tor II. and nowhere is there
later complaint o. the tx law. |
ham in West Virginia.
To Reveal Hidden Property.
As to some method to at presen, |
-urrcct the inequalities Of assess
n~ntS "f tangible personal property. |
and also of bringing To light Tor tax
ttion hidden and concealed property |
Nc committee has before il a bill pre-
sentCd 10y nae requiring "A special grand |
Jury TO pass upon the commissioners |
books before they are finally filed. am |
upon their oaths to examine the items |
ana report 10 the court whether a.
easements have been made aCcordirS |
- fair market value" according to !
he constitution, and authorizing the |
curt t. cite parties To appear ant
how cause why the proper correc- |
Ions suggested by the jury should not
oc lGadN. This is a simple local and
inexpensive method. and If the honesty
and integrity OF the men of Virginia
may be relleNd upon. il will be effec-
| dive. And ii the honesty Of sworr.
| Grand jurieS cannot be relied upon
! IAN We rely upon any one else bcin.
| iair ana just? In finding hidden %
/ concealed property the grand jury has |
| 3roNen in this State most effective ana
| Il made compulsory upon the courts
! 20 call grand juries Tor this specific
purpose. We may expect TO see intargi-
| lie personal property come forth
! tbundanuy. II should be remember
q that under the decision Of our
/ supreme Court in the Lambert case
no tax commissioner or other person
may be permitted TO exercise inquisi-
torial powers over a person To find his
property. but 4 grand jury may in
luire 10y sworn witness and ascertain
the facts and indict and this hanging |
over the heads Of those seeking to |
dodge. viii cause them 10 pause be- |
.ore coucealing their property.
/ ask. therefore. that the bill re- |
luirinS special grand juries may DE |
reported faVorablN. "a this is perhaps ,
he only feasible solution until segre- |