The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1914-08-12
Replies to
State Tax Commission

state. 1 am not reliably informed as
to the action of the boards Of equaliza-
ton in any counties except that OF
Cass, where the board ignored the in
structtons as to back taxes n practl-
cally nullff1ed the tax for 1914 but In a
different ann from that pursued in
this county. In this county the county
auditor followed the instructions of the
tax commission and laid the matter be-
fore the county board.
The Richland county board reduced
the assessment of leased sites on rail-
0 right of way one hundred per cent
which wipes out the assessment. This
was done for the following reasons:
1st.. Leased sites have never been
assessed to the renters. The property
belongs to the railroads and there is
no valid reason why it should be as
sessed to any one else, nor in the. opin-
ion of the board could the tax be en-
forced against any one other than the
railroads. The railroads are assessed
by the state board and the county COM
missioners have nothing to do with
the assessing of railroad property.
End. Many of the assessors did not
make an assessment of the leased sites
on railroad right of way and 1t would
be obviously unfair to tax leased sites
in one locality and not in another.
Moreover in districts where the as
SCISSORS did return the assessments the
valuations were in few If any cases the
same as the valuations placed upon the
property by the tau commission.
3rd. Many pieces of property were
omitted by the tax commission In their
list and the values named on the sew
eral descriptions were so obviously UNI
fair and unequal that it was apparent
that If the assessment was made as
ordered by the tax commission the
county would be involved in much liti-
| cation.
4th. The board was reliably inform
ed that the matter of assessing leased
sites on railroad right of way was to be
I triad in tho courts and fhnrn uynVT16 he
ample time to assess the property after
the questions of law had been settled,
provided the tax commission was up
held by the courts.
AS to the property in which I myself
am interested and to which the Forum
article refers, 1 will say that that
property Is only one piece out of about
n hundred and twenty-five in this
county and the resolution of the board
did not affect 1T any differently thar 1t
did any of the other pieces.
This property is a tract of about 3d.
600 square feet owned by the Great
Northern railroad and occupied by the
McCulloch Robinson Lumber company
for the past twenty odd years. During
this period our company has paid a
yearly rental to the Great Northern
Wahpeton similarly situated has been
valued by the assessor at $475 and $625.
h tax commission. for reasons best
known to themselves placed a value OF
SIS, 400 on this property and ordered tax
es to be paid on that valuation for six
years back. 1t was afterwards return
ed by the assessor at 81 900. The val
uation named by the tax commission
on the property rented by me was pro-
p~ortionately higher than any other of
the one hundred and twenty-five pieces
of property named on the tax commiss-
ion list This in spite of the fact. that
there is no single lumber yard in
Richland county on which as much tax
Is paid as on the McCulloch Robinson
yard In Wahpeton.
I am making this statement for the
information of the general public and
in, justice of myself and the other mem,
bers of the county board. I should like
very much to have a thorough investl'
gation made of this matter and 1 invite
anyone Interested to make an nvesti
cation of this tax matter and our &C,
ton relating thereto.
w. J. ROBINSON.