Iron County register., 1922-03-30


fore the convention of county asses
sors. 1t would be quite proper for many
of us to observe in this connection, al
though itwould be somewhat ungener-
Gus, that gaeat many people think
the present Board ought to be abolish
ed, or at least suppressed. Mr.. Bar
rett says that full valuations have
come to stay, and that what he calls
"fractional assessment" has gone for
ever. Then, with the heroics of
youth and inexperience, he "dares
any political party to make cam
paign on any other kind of platform"
The people, says Mr.. Barrett, "will
never consent to return of the old
system of haphazard and varying
fractional assessments"
Mr.. Barrett speaks well, but his
words do not square with the facts.
In the first place, the action of the
present State Board Of Equalization in
arbitrarily increasing assessed valua-
tions all over the state, without ade-
quately considering the circumstances
and the effect, was the crudest piece
of official action ever taken in Mis-
souri,. 1t was certain to result in high
er taxes, for all levies have to be as
sessed against the new valuations. 1t
was certain to bring about the most
extreme injustice to the people. The
money it would raise was not needed
by the state-a surplus of between
four and five million had been left by
the former administration, If the
counties had needed the money, and
the people of the counties wanted
more money in the county treasures,
there were many ways in which they
could have proceeded locally. The
net result of this Boards action was
to force high taxes on most of the
counties, without consideration of
local sentiment. What business was
it of the State Board of Equalization
that the county of A., for ex-
ample, should be compelled to collect
twice as much as had hitherto been
required by the county in the pay
ment OF it's county bills? None at all.
If there were inequities in the local
assessments, there are vastly more
and in far greater proportion in the
assessments made by the State Board.
The trouble with the State Boards
performance was not that it imposed
Tssfull assessments.,' In thousands 81
cases it brought about the assessment
of property at far more than its actual
value. 1t wasn't "full valuation" 1t
was excessive valuation.
When farmer is called upon to
pay taxes on Ford automobile at
twice it's selling price, that isn't full
valuation. 1t is extortion.
When land owner is called upon
to pay taxes upon farm assessed at
$50 per acre, when he can only sell ii
for $I5, after the instance cited from
Vernon county, that isn't full valua-
ton. 1t is confiscation.
! When corn grower is called upon
to pay taxes on corn assessed at over
six times it's market value, that ISM
full valuation. 1t is downright rob-
berry.
These are the things Mr.. Barrett
and his fellow advocates of this fanci
full theory of full valuation will have
to face. If he means the kind of full
valuation Hyde and this Board gav'
the state in 1921, then Mr.. Barrett
'sdare" will promptly be accepted
and il he and his party stand for tha
kind of valuation in taxing methods
there will not be enough left of then
in November to make it worth Will
to reorganize them. The "full valua
tion" plan is deception and snare
The people have found it out, an
!, Mr.. Barrett's party, as the responsi
!. BILE body, will pay the bill at the polls
q .