Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1923-08-31
DISMISS APPEAL
FOR Abatement OF
TAXES SHAWMUT co,


In a rescript recently handed down
by Justice Dunn of the supreme judi
cial court the appeal of the Shaw
NUT Manufacturing Company for the
abatement of taxes for the year 1920
was dismissed with costs. The APP
peal was taken from the adverse de-
cision OF the county commissioners
to which the case had been taken aft
err the denial OF the local assessors
of the petition. The decision takes
many points of law into considera :
| ton and the finding is most clear
and comprehensive.
! The rescript follows:
IAN appeal under Revised Statutes.
| Chapter 10. Sections 70 and so. first,
| to the commissioners of Kennebec
county. and from the adverse deci-
sion of that board to this court al
nis prius. from the denial by local
assessors of a petition for an abate-
ment of taxes assessed in 1871. Inc
| Justice below reserved the case, both
of fact and law. for final judgment
| by the law court.
By mutual consent Of the parties.
the issue was broadened. beyond the
allegations of the petitions and the
reasons of the appeals, to include the
property was within the territorial
| limits of the town of Benton. A
study of the evidence fails to sustain
| the assertion that the assessors mis-
! took the true and legal position OF
Bentons western boundary line.
The appellant owns dam across
| the Kennebec river. between the
towns of Benton and Fairfield. to-
gether with the bed Of the river on
which it is erected, and the land al
either end against which IT abuts'
This dam. built Of concrete in 1872
10, creates a head, in an average
flow, of 20 feet; throwing back water
for a distance Of 10 miles, and drain
ing a watershed 425O square miles In
area. The development. when the
river Is neither appreciably shrunken
by droughts nor swollen by freshets,
aDproXimates 5000 horsepower. All
the energy finds application in gen.
Grating electricity on the western or
Fairfield side. The Benton assessors
set the valuation at $4,000 on the
appellants privilege water right
and dam" in that town.
Obligation of showing adequate
reason for changing the existing or
der of things rests upon the appel
liant. 1t must prove enough at least
to make a prima facie case before "
can be entitled to have its appeal
sustained. The system of taxation
which it is for the assessors to APP
NV, like every other taxing method
vet devised, is incapable of COM
plete and perfect administration.
Exact proportion or equality is I'M
possiblc. There is no iron rule by
which the public burden may be ap-
portioned and imposed in equal eX-
actitudc. Burdens sometimes are
made to rest unevcnly, careful pur-
nose otherwise Notwithstanding. ana
the proving of a mere error OIL nu-
man Judgment will not support
claim of OVerratinS.
There is not, in the second any eNi
dence showing that The property stahus
of valuation on the assessment doom
for more than it's actual worth. There
is evidence that the cost OF bulidlhS
the Benton part. in round numbers,
s5o oOO without the worth of the land
on which it is built, and the water
covered land behind it, and the bank
next il. Witnesses say that, since ils
building. the structure has appreclal-
cd rather than deprecated IN Value.
ascribab1e to the hardening anu
strengthening of the cement, the ele-
mont of indefinite life, plus the DEM
| onstration of the dams capacity 70
| hold in check the mighty waters 81
tho sevcrest floods ever known to fall
upon the basin supplying its reserve
| of stored force. And there is eVi-
| dence that increases for labor ana ma
terials would make the cost or repro
duction double that originally IN
CURED. D.,
Water power, as has been argued. in
hi =
( SON why is That the riparian proprietor
! has no property in the water which
runs by his land. He has as incident
| TO his ownership, the right OF inter
runting and using the water for need
cd and useful industries and otner-
wise. while it passes along; ana OF
/ taking thereby all the profit. utlltE
and advantage which it i1ay produce
| without prejudice to the ni,51:G OF oti-
or owners above or below. unless ne
has acquired a superior right.
That which the. assessors wrote Is
| interpretable; we are leVylnS, not SIM
Dlv tax on a dam by dam SITE pu''
| additionally, tax on the site oS Tue
Gam, the privilege water right uiioc-
cupied at the present time, but WIN
| potential possibilities. attrlputaple ~
! advantageous position, Affecting Juse
and assescable value, in the We" VI
sovcreignty's taxing power
Were it proved :hlt. not as resui
Of more error of judgment. but dellp-
oratolv a system Of valuation was
,donted by those whose duty - was tt
n,al,o the assessment, which was de-
signed to operate uneGualiy ara 60
violate the Fundamental principe Oh
uniformity. it would spell unWorshi-
moss and wrong: it would disclose an
Intentional ignoring by the local o"l-
cers of the constitutional PROVISIONS
which they swore that they would up
hold. il would tend to dim that JUS
tica which is the end of COVE II ,'cnt.
Where assessors knowingly AMI mean
injgly assess one property at us Just
value and other property OF the same
class at less than it's just value there
is n wrong. And if the wrong were
not redressed there would be dehia
of Justice. But this appellant is not
so circumstanced.
The remedy of the overvalued prop
ertv owner is a broad and comprcheh-
siye enquiry which is not 10 pc re-
stricted by arbitrary and lmmutaDie
rules inconsistent with substantial
iustness.s Nevertheless a petitioner
for an abatement must make his case
no must show that his property IS
overrated: that the valuation. having
reference to Just value. is manlfestly
wrong. or that an unjust discr1mina
tion. denying the equal protection OF
the laws. exists; he must establish IN
disputably that he Is aggrieVed. FOR
the reason that the appellants case
does not so attain. its appeal is dis