Valdez daily prospector., 1915-11-01

the rights of Lathrop & Martin to an- mex the streets of Valdez.
 We are asking justice and that Is why we are attacked. The gang has
 made the statement i've will starve them out, we will drive them out of town" We'll, gentlemen, they have been starving me out for thirteen years, and will continue to keep up this fight for I believe l am right
 They may pursue these strong arm tactics from now to Looms day, put I will continue to discharge my du-
 tiesties and do. what is right irrespec-
 tive of anyone:
 I wish to say in the beginning that
 the work accomplished by our assess
 or, John s. Hockey, has been per
 formed in a very able and capable
 manner. MT. Hockey has made thor
 ough and impartial assessment of the
 property of this town and has done 1t
 without fear or favor. There has
 been an assessment levied against the
 Valdez Dock Company on which they
 protest. The Valdez Dock Company
 is engaged in the business of hand
 ling lumber, hay, grain and coal. They
 claim as a result of their business
 being outside of the corporate limits of your city that they are exempt from
 tax. Four years ago the Town of
 Fairbanks brought suit against the Independent Meat Co. The Indepen- dent Meat Co. was operating outside the linits of Fairbanks and carried a stock of meat from $50,000 to $75,- 900. The Fairbanks people said, You shall Fay your portion" They said "no." As result suit was instituted against the Independent Meat Com pany and Judge Overfield rules that they should pay the same as any body else, for the meat was brought in to Fairbanks and consumed and sold there.
 The town council contends that the same rule should apply to the Valdez Dock Co. The Valdez Dock Co. should pay their proportion of the taxes of this community the same as anyone else. Attorney Donohoe, represent ing Donohe & Dimond and Lyons & Ritchie, all of whom represent the Dock Company, contend that it is not good law when their attention was directed to the facts. The fact re- mains, however, it is the law whether it is good law or bad law. It is the law, and it is the purpose of this town council to see that these laws are enforced so far as it applies to the Valdez Dock Company.
 wish to state farther that I have personal differences with MT. Lath- rop, MT. Martin or the Prospector. am doing what consider right in the matter. Further in reference to these by the Prospector, have here copy of their yesterdays issue with an article headed "Sheep and Goats" I have been called a good many names, but this is the first time I have been designated as sheep or goat. It yet remains to be seen who will be the "goat." They state here that every possible impeachment that could be thrown into the way of these parties, calculated to embarrass and them, has been used by me. This may be true, but it was only in order to secure justice for you, the taxpayers of this town. They state that the assessment of the Val deg Dock Company and other proper ties adjacent to it are excessive. defy them to prove anything Of the kind.
 Now, in regards to the assessment on the Valdez Prospector, a little less than six weeks ago they were adver- Using the fact that they had $l0.- 900 plant. They put in their assess ment at a total value of $2,O65. The assessor concluded that this was not sufficient so he told them that he would have to raise it, and MT. Heck ey made a return of S4,50O.00 on the s1O,OOO plant. Their return alto- gether was $2,065.00, mird you. On their return on a supposedly s10.00O plant MT. Hockey says, "Gent'emen. I condiser you ought to increase that" and he increased it himself to $4,- 500. The Board of Eauali7ation on my suggestion, reduced it to s25n0 for the main reason that there was oniy part of the equipment in the building at the time the assessment was levied September first. The facts are that every councilman who sat on the Board of Fnualization was of the opinion they should he assessed more.
 Again as to MT. Treat. He was as- sessed the sum of $7,000 on the COT. ner lot. I am creditably informed that MT. Treats income off thot lot last year was at the rate of 70 ner cent on Sl 4,OUV. l dSh you u IhoS assessment of Treats is ex"essive. l think you will all concur with me that it is not. There is no truth in the statement that waterfront property along the Valdez Dock was assessed while that along the City dock es- capped!
 In reference to the Archibald and other property including the Bunnell nroperty, the same assessment was levied this year as last year and all were treated fairly and I defy them to show anything to the contrary: m the Wulff property and other prop erty on Court street, will say that all the property on this street was raised from s150 to s200. including the property of City Marshal Scott: All were treated in the same impart'al manner. All were raised from Slo" to 5000 to make them conform with tho value of adjacent prOnertieS.