West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1916-09-21
Darst 10 Our Rescue
John J. Cornwell In Hampshire Re-
view.)

The Hon. John Sherman Darst. audi
tor OF the state. who opposed the Hat
held machines increase OF taxation
and who was in turn opposed by the
machine for denomination. but who
succeeded in getting on the ticket and
is now a candidate for reelection. has
gone upon the stump-we are about
to say for Judge Robinson, but IL his
speech is correctly reported i'm the
Wheeling Intelligencer one is rather
forced TO the conclusion he must be
speaking for himself and is giving the
hook TO Hatfield. Robinson and the
machine.
According TO the Intelligencer,
speaking at Madison, Boone county.
last Monday. Mr. Darst said:
Il want TO answer Mr.. Cornwell,
when he condemns the present assess
ment law by saying: II we had not
changed the value OF lots OF the prop
erty four and five times. IL would have
been impossible to run the state gov
ernment on 80 cent levy. as Il was
I'm 1877, but IL would have been neces-
sary to increase the state levy $3.50
on the 800 valuation"
In other words the Hon. John Sher-
man Darst goes upon the stump I'm
West Virginia In the year OF 1915 and
frankly admits they changed the basis
of assessment OF property in the year
OF 1904 and increased the assessed val
uation OF property i'm West Virginia
many times for the purpose OF taxing
more money out OF the people with
lower rate. Just exactly what the
writer charged against the machine in
1904. but which II strenuously denied.
But. Mr.. Darst? How about the prom
Use OF 1904? Did not you and your
associates contend then. I'm Justifying
the change and the contemplated in
crease hereunder OF the assessed val
uation of properties. that II did not
matter how high properties were as
sessed for you were going to eliminate
the direct state tax entirely, raise all
revenue needed for state purposes by
license taxes and that direct taxes
would be imposed for local purposes
only?
Did you and the machine keep that
promise TO the people OF the state ?
When you say that had the basis of
assessment not been changed you
would now have to be leVying $l.50
on the 500 for state purposes you are
speaking the truth. The state tax rate,
under the old assessment, was 35
cents. so are you not frankly admit
ting your crowd-not your crowd
but the gang you are now trying TO
defend-has increased taxes nearly
FIVE times over what they were in
1904. for state purposes by rails
ing the rate but by increasing the as
sessments?? You have admitted Il
and for that admission you are en-
titled to some credit
But whether you admit Il or not It
is easily proven. Let us take the real
estate OF the state: In 1904 all the
real estate in West Virginia was as
bebseu NJ 9loo,foO,lDO. Win an as
sessment OF 80 cents on the 800. the
people all paid in state tax on their
real estate S579, 9,5sO52. In 1916 this
identical real estate was assessed at
S69l .445.971. With state tax rate
OF IL cents the owners OF this same
property paid s9GS.O24.35 or nearly
twice as much money under the IA
cent rate under Hatneldism as under
a 30 cent rate under Atkinson, a Re
publican governor.
But that ls not all Various new
licenses have been imposed. the cOllat-
eral inheritance tax greatly increased
and In 1915 the machine laid an In
come tax on all corporations. the
amount collected under which we can
only guess
A very valuable admission, friend
Darst Did you do II purposely OF did
you have a slip OF the mouth