Martinsburg journal. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1920-1977, 1922-07-06
Fruit Men Ask Revision
OF Valuation Because OF
RuinatiOn OF 1922 Crop


for 1922 assessment books are turn
ed over to the County Court for the
levy, was asked ny a body of fruit
growers Of the county this morn
ing to revise downward the pres
ent orchard valuation scale because
the yield this season will be SO linn
tied as to mako entirely unfair the
increase in orchard property re-
ported by the assessor The Board
was still hearing the growers at
noon ald had not indicated as
body what its views were and what
disposition would be made of the re-
quest.
Special Assessor Wilbur II. Tho
mas, designated by State Tax Com
missioner lIallanln to advise with
the assessors and the boards OF re-
Wow in tho fruit counties regard
ing fair valuation on fruit land, sat
with the board this morning and.
because of his activity in eonneo-
ton with the assessment and HE
status as the tax commissioner
special representative, both took
part in the discussion and was quiz
zed by the growers.
Me''oo w neoue''o" o'''ou'.
no "'9'"SS'',' ran "sa'ne. 'n'.
Piopieh'' assuming 'f,at inc I'oa1u
would mako a reduction on the
fruit land, of how 1t could be equit-
ably done. The proposal to make
a fiat revision for all orchards on
inc b'oulu oi the pr"Gtleaily to,ai
ffi of hn n n.
,allure OF Ia" o,op ta,sea inc OBJ
Jgetio"' "n.'n 'Poeia' AesoSsoI
'ioi,,aS Sa'a ne eo1io never apahu'
on, tiat ~ "ou,a De unfair 10 'e'
eeae on '"e l9@@ Nai"atloh Where
'"ei' wa" " lar '''p, 'ol'e Oh 'ho
s'o"'iS ','InE o's"aias ",ioie thels
hangs proOao'y l'ohtaoie crop A.
thouBn ''eSe Instances are very
iate. 70 give 'ne orei,aio WIN
crop tue same reauelioh az tnf
ne'eubo' ihS ",cna'o ",iere there y
no crop "ouiu De UNFAIR 10 'he
state, u was pointed out Wh'ch IN
s'iluted the reVa'ua'lon tnat result
ea IN tho pooSt,hH oi YaiueS' nut
on the olheF manu- the Bro"fs
7ttc9Se" NE co''Fe,se on the prop
osi'''h an" Iu9'S''d tnat Hioioiy ~,
''u5" "u 'So'''ou oicn'iu haPpopea
+" nav" crop thlS year IT "ouiu
not DC ia'r 10 inc pafIen orepdrus
atJolh'HS W In"'h'a'h 'He li'ofeaSo
"'''eH wy yio,nI"H oiohdio per- apo
MdiIan'eu' ne growers e"p'alned
titdt tney leIC lney were ac'ihB
"lth'h tneiF riRht7 ~ coming pe-
I're iIio poaro' ti'at INC boaro was
oo"7''tulou Tor JUST Such oineFbeh'
Clc7' ana added tlat theIe Wouin
nave Deen no appearance hao IL not
PEI n Ior the Iact tIlal the crop pros
P'et5 were tuiieH ny me tree1s
Wi'cil came amer most OF the or
cHaIa property haa peeh viewed
II WAS eHP'a'nro ti'at orchard
ptopertie" ranged IN values between
3Iop ana %"oo III inns county rev
Oh lnen running as hIen as the lat'
Ter HRure' anu ll'at @zpV per acre
was t@h'H us pdae i"i sooo or.
Ha'"' wen cu'ti'atea' win sood
't,t8 an" o. bearing age.
ndl'dnan onucrStdfus e'tuat'on
y t'IGsi am II ON lax cohfi'S-
alohei 'l"i'aHah 10 0peclai Assessor
,r, '> " ''Ni'
VI hoiha8 appri8ihg the tax OF
ny" or l'le freeze ana ltS deVaStat,
lHs cuot,9' Md3 Ieau 10 the hoarn
ana ~ O"e run men III "nlcn tne
'"A commissioner sara ne Wouid see
"',Il"ut 81 itIclSln any aaJustiheht OF
E"Iue5 ""lCh was IaiF ana "plch
Woulu 1Soio lhe creation OF any lax
i Sl''I'n ''' '"' II Ut growers lhess
,i.9li W. r.l''I'' "eIa 8uPPIehehted'
".. lH'I"a5 saIu' II conversation
WIN inc TX COMMISSIONER last
"e'H. IN ""'c" inc laE head direct
~ iaal any reasonable adjustment
~ maui
me IIV4t men SaId they mad no
9ptefl''" 10 "a" increase IN Yaiua-
II s'',h on 'ic''aiH ana generally put
.idl Nv increases 3houid Keep pace
".H lhe a'luai value OF the prop
cry, IN me win TINS they decIar-
eo u was JISl as reasonable 10 ask
i2s feduli'on "nen developments
d'l'r l'e Af7I survey showed the
property not "arrdhtlng, on the ac-