Fulton County tribune. (Wauseon, Ohio) 1883-1925, 1914-04-10

Ir1enQS explain why an assessor should
| not be elected when a gain is made OF
$265, 900 in the tax value of personal
property and gain of 1877 1-2 per
cent in the tax value of money and
credits in Wauseon, for one year, as
was done in 1911 by an elected as
SCISSOR. If tax returns are to deter
mine whether or not the assessor
should be appointed or elected the
weight of evidence is against the ap-
pointment of an assessor.
As a matter of information the val
uations of personal property in Waus-
con as shown by the tax duplicate for
several years and the gain over the
preceding year is given below:
Year Valuation Gain
1910 $141,090
1911 4O6,09O 265, 900
1912 549.62O 143, ,OO0
1913 568,650 1900
The value of moneys, credits and
stocks etc. owned in Wauseon and
returned for taxation as shown by the
county auditors tax duplicate for the
year 1910 was $497,90. For 1911 it
was $148, ,167, a gain of $98,377 or
197 IL per cent. For1912 it was
S270,615, gain of $124,656 over the
preceding year.
1t is interesting to note the in
crease in the valuation of the
tax duplicate with the decrease of the
tax rate. In 1910 the tax rate in Wau-
3eon, was 43.4 mills. In 1911 it was
13 mills and in 1912 and 1918 it was
she same. But during the time of
listing of property for taxation in
1913 the legislature was in session
and all sorts of bills were pending
before it to break down the Smith
one per cent. law. The effect of this
agitation for increased taxes can be
seen IN the return of the personal
property for taxation for the year
with the uncertainty of how much
the tax rate would be raised. Per-
sonal property owners again began
to seek retrenchment. The vast ma
iority of the people are honest and
will make honest returns of their pro-
perty for taxation when they are as
surred that their property will not be
eonfiscated for taxes.
The time required for the assessor
to list the personal property in Wau-
seon, has been from 80 to "a days in
in any one year, which would fix the
cost from $50 to $1O2 per year, which
is no more than the cost this year. !,
Unfair Statement.
The first paragraph of the article
from the "Expositor" given above
says that both the personal and real
property in Wauseon was appraised
in 40 days. Now the fact of the mat
ter is that the real estate in Wauseon
was not appraised at all and / chal-
lenge nybody to show where changes
have been made in the valuation of
ten pieces of real estate in Wauseon.
exclusive of buildings, or by reason of
the fact that out laying land has been
plated. The author of the article
knew this fact but permitted it to
be published in order to make the
people believe that the Warnes law
was such wonderful economic meas
ure. The truth is that every asses.
sor appointed in this county was told
especially not to change the value of
the real estate. It the law won't
stand upon its merits don't practice
deception to try and make it stand.
1t won't work.
Honest Citizenship.
]. Prior to the year 1914, the people
in Ohio elected their assessors. 1t
took as much courage, ability and
honesty in an elected assessor in 1911
10 increase the tax value of the per-
sonal property of Wauseon, 1866 900,
and in 1912 to again increase it on
the preceding year $4,000, as it did
the appointed assessor in 1914 to in
crease it $187,O00.
The supporters of the Warnes tax
law indirectly charge that the citizen
ship of Ohio is not honest. The as
SCISSORS were elected in nearly every
instance by a majority vote Of the
electors of a taxing precinct Then
one of two propositions must be true,
either the majority of the voters are
dishonest tax dodgers or few pow
erful, rich tax dodgers can compel the
majority of the voters to vote as the
rich tax dodger desires, if the con-
tention of the supporters of the Warn
es law is correct. / believe that
neither proposition is true. l believe
the citizenship of Ohio is honest. l
believe that the people of Ohio are
capable of electing their local pub
lie officials. And upon the face of
the returns of the assessor in this
county there is nothing to justify the
enactment of law which deprives
the people of their right to elect their
local public officials.
FRANK H. REIGHARD.