The Raymer enterprise., 1915-06-10

Assessor - aeid C0any.
As letter to the Tax Commission
the above is admirable and presents to
that body reasons which they should
consider and investigate. However, as
letter 10 the pubiie it lacks a good
deal uf giving the people the inlvrma-
ton they need to judge whether o. not
Colorado is better OH under the lax
Commission than formerly.
1t mas seemed to us, that the trouble
with al Of Mr.. Mumper's contributions
ON tax problems. be has labored to con.
vince the public that the Tax Commits
sion should be abolished, and with that
in view he has neglected to give the
public the facts needed to determine
the matter in the light Of the best SER
vice to all the people.
We are glad 10 note that Mr. Mum
per has found at least one Tax Com
mission which serves the people. We
have never eOniended that the Colora-
DO Tax Commission mad given Weld
county an equitable valuation, but we
have eontended that the principle of
tax commission is right. Ii our Tax
Commission mas not done right il should
be laid to the administration Of the law
and the men who administered il rather
the law.
Another thing, to determine what
the Tax Commission has done and
whether it tendency is toward far MSS,
comparisons should be made with years
when we we're under the former plan
of assessment rather than with other
states.
A comparison Of assessments made
in 1912, the last year under old system,
and in 1913, the first year after the Tax
Commission law went into effect and the
+ first year Of Mr.. Aumper's assessment,
show something which we have reler
noticed in any communication given the
pnhle by Mr. Mumper. We have
never seen an admission by him that
railways and property assessed by the
I Commission wss raised in value. The
inference from all of his articles is that
they have been reduced. We presume
that he would say still that this was
/ true as to relative values, because in
1912 we were supposed to be taking
one third valuation, while in 1918 the
full valuation policy was adopted.
Even this should be explained, SO as to
lead to no misunderstanding.
The circulars sent by Mr.. Mumper
into this section in the spring of 1914,
led many people tall Of whom we en-
CURED to believe the railroads were
paying on the same valuation rs they
paid upon in the 1912 assessment, while
other property had been raised by him
over Ills 1912 valuation, and still been
subjected To the G3 per cent raise by
the Tax Commission. At the time, we
felt that this was left purposely mis-
leauing; but better aeqnaitancs with
Mr.. Mumper leads us to believe that
he is earnestly striving to get at fair
valuation. as he honestly sees the mat
ter. However, false impressions,
created either honestly or otherwise,
are hinderanee to right conclusion
As matter of fact the Tax Comn.is-
sion give out statement showing that
three times the 1912 assessment Of
railroads would have been sl3, SS2, 100.
while the Commission actually assessed
them al sl4, 33l, ,470, or nearly half a
million more than three times. On all
other property assessed by the Com
mission in 1918, three times the 1912
assessment wonld have been 81, 220, 400,
while the Commission assessed them at
". l42, $50, or nearly million more
than three times. IL will be noted that
the railroads did not get so large per
cent OF increase as the smaller corpo-
ratlons.
On property assessed by Mr. Mumper
in 1918, three times the 1912 assess
ment would have been sl5, lS2, go.
while Mr.. Mumper assessed its at
S37, ls0, go. or nine millions less than
three times. The big items of loss are
on irrigated lands and town property,
which together show loss of over ten
millions from three times the 1912 as
sessment of the same property. To
have maintained the same proportion
of increase as the Commission should
have only increased Mir. Mum
per's valuation 10 fifty millions. while
they made It sixty millions. Assuming
that the 1912 assessment was proper
uonately. equitable. the Commission