The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1914-05-28

RAILROAD TAXATION

Il
In this issue Of The Banner is an
article from the ST. Adams Mesaen
ger containing letter from ;. T..
Royce of 81. Adams on the subject OF
e,lroad taxation. Mr.. Royce speaks
rather siirhtingB Of newspapers.
which disagree with him even though
hey may be just IS sincere and hon
est in their views as he is In his. Al
the risk OF being blacklisted by Mt
Royce The Banner will venture TO
say few words on the subject
IN assessing taxes the state ana
| owns do not ask whether the prope
| ~ taxed Is paying or not. When the
| nsters.approach farmer. a merchant
or newspaper publisher they do not
| INQUIRE whether he Is making MS
property pay dividends or not. why
should a railroad company expect to
no asked that question In fact,
wouldn't any such provision bring
chaos I'm taxation
Profit depends considerably on
busipcgs ability. One farmer makes
his farm pay handsomely each year
| while his nearest neighbor with bet
| ter ia m may run behind. Can the
| state or the town discriminate be-
| tween the two In assessing property
for taxation n there can be no dis
elimination in case OF individuals
how can there be In the case 81 cor
porsiions H all are TO be treated equal
IL Jude the constitution
II seems 10 US that u Is schefF
dent that the value must be taxed.
No, the business ability 90 make ii
nay. FOR that reason Mr. Royce
| comparison and argument fall to The
| ground The state law provides lhai
the property. both Of corpora ions
| aud individuals shall he assessed az
"iair and just valuation
The STATE law Eucs furthc- than
this IN nrovidnc that m" tax rate on
railroad property shall ho fl.25 ON a
hundred dollars. while the rate ON IN.
4 | dividual property averages about
si.So. At nrst glance this would loon
! ike discrimination in favor al the
! .ailroa,ls. but the state makes certain
other demands ON railroads ia con
neciion with the elimination OF grade
! crossings. using safety devices, run
j ming trains and building and main
tanning stations and these onset II
> whole or in mart the reduced taX'ra.'
:, allowed.
Mr. Royce refers to the principal
| railroad in Vermont meaning sup
| ,osodlv the Central Vermont. We re
/ ore, that the road is not p.ohtabie-
\ 40 regret that iis owners are not aol'
/ N mt Il on n paving basis-bu
| should the state OF Vermont rebate
| its taxes for that reason any MGR
| .hsn the town of Bennington shouts
| rebate the taxes Of the publisher o
| The Bannc because he is not able Z
run the business at profit
ii Il Is not the fault OF the state @
| | Vermont that the present owners 9
the Central Vermont bought propert
which they cannot make profitable
II Is not the faul. OF the state OF We
mont that the directors Of the & an
Trunk saddled the Central Vernon
with n tremendous burden in come
lion with the abortive attempt
bnilJ the Southern New England !
10 Providence in competii ion WI
| The New Haven. 1t is not the iat
of the state OF eVrmont that the &c
raj Vermont bought or leased or OF
~ erwise acquired the West River VI
lev road. the Burlington and Lamoi
- and other branches which are run
a loss each year. II is not the ia
Of the state OF Vermont that thc
We mont Central was MIXED Of
. reasonable profits for years by 81
, devices as the National Dispatch c.
many and that bad inanciering tina
dropped the road into tho hands
.hc Grand Trunk.
Mr.. Royce makes a strong plea
Inc Central We mont and We sho
Se clad 10 see It's tax burden ca'
nm ir il can be done without Unjust
, 10 other tax paying properly own
but the Central Vermont is not
only property in Vermont that
|. heavily burdcnod by taxation. tn
- are a lot of poor struggling indivi
vi ais that deserve relief just as mi
n AS any corporation.
m Mr. Royce makes clever argum
~ ] but he ignores the recognized ~
=, Of tax levy and we do no; icol ina