Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1922-07-13
ASSESSMENTS REDUCED.

net, was presented last week to the
board OF equalization and review ol
Berkeley county sitting as a final as
seSSlne agency before 1922 assessment
books are turned over to the county
court tof the levy, by body of fruit
growers and business men at Martins
burg. The specific prayer was for a
downward revision of the present or
4 chard valuation scale because the yield
THIS season will be so limited as 10
make entirely unfair the increase in
orchard property reported by the as
SeSSor
The board on Saturday morning or
dered Hat reduction of IS per cent
on ihe 1922 scale, putting the valu-
alton back practically TO the 1921 scale,
on the basis of which the Tax Commis-
Sloner'S Office ordered substantial IN
crease.
The assessor and staff are opposing
the reduction and have asked that
special representative come from tn
tax office to review the whole siuation
Further appeals for reductions were
forecasted following the concession to
the fruit men when Martinsburg bus
iness men asked for a hearing, and
the farmers of the county intimated
they would like to make a concerted
appeal for relief also
Special Assessor Wilbur H. ThoneS
designated by State Tax Commissioner
Hallanan to advise with the assessors
and the boards of review in the fruit
counties regarding fair valuation or
fruit land, sat with the board, and be-
cause of his activity in connection with
the assessment and his status as tn,
Tax Commissioners special represen.-
ative took part in the discussion and
was quizzed by the growers.
The discussion early ran against the
problem, assuming that the board
would agree to make a reduction on
the fruit land, of how it could be CO.
utably dome. The proposal to make a
fiat revision for all orchards on the
ground Of the practically total failure
of the crop, raised the objection, which
Special Assessor Thomas said he per-
sonally could never abandon, that it
would be unfair to recede on the 1922
valuation. To give the orchard with
a crop the same reduction as the neigh.
boring orchard where there is no crop
would be unfair to the State, it wa
pointed out, which instituted the pres
ent revaluation that resulted in the
boosting of values.
! But the embarrassed growers stress
! ed. the converse of the proposition and
insisted that merely because an isolat-
ed orchard happened to have cror
this year it would not be fair TO tb.,
barren orchards adjoining to maintain
an increase on them which the yield
ing orchard perhaps warranted. The
] inc tInt fzI.
were acting within their rights in COM
ing before the board, that the board
I was constituted for Just such emerpen
cies, and added that there would have
been no appearance had it not been for
the fact that the crop prospects were
ruined by the freeze which came after
! most OF tne orchard property had beer
viewed
1t was explained that orchard prop
ertles ranged in values between SlOC
ana $500 in Berkeley county, few OF
mem running as high as the latter fig
ure, and that $500 an acre was taken
as base for a good orchard, well cul-
tlvated, with good trees and of bear
ing age The same condition holds
true for Jefferson and Morgan coun-
ueS also, which are extensive fruit
counties.
/ A telegram from Tax Commissioner
! Hallanan to Special Assessor Thomas
/ answering letter from MIR. Thomas
/ apprislng the tax Office of the freeze
and its devastating effects, was read
to the board and TO the fruit men, in
which the Tax Commissioner said h,
weld see without criticism any ad.
+ ju2tme1t Of values which was fair and
which would avoid the creation of any
tax burden for the fruit growers.
These Instructions were supplement-
+ ed Mr Thomas said, in n cOn"ersa-
tion with the Tax Commissioner re-
/ Gently in which the tax head direct
ed that any reasonable adjustmcnI
be made.
/ Branding the action of the Berkeley
/ County Board of Review as '',Il.car
| in reducing the fruit lani valuations
| by 25 ner cent, Commissioner Halla-
nan pointedlv requested The board ic
/ reconsider the matter of assessment
in telegram received BY :he t"arj
Monday morning. In his telegram Mr.
/ Hallanan said "thc courts have held
that the Board Of Review has no au-
thority to order horizontal decrease
/ in assessments" Each property must
/ be treated on an individual basis" he
/ continued. 81 want to call this to
your attention so that you may under
stand that vour action in ordering
/ horizontal decrease would be invalid.
| IF there is any orchard property as
sessed AZ more than its true value il
is undoubtedly the duty of the board
to reduce it, but so far as making a
general decrease in assessment il
would be an abuse of your authority.
! | would request your reconsideration
Of the matter"
! Whv raise a crop of wheat or hay
I Al. .t -.