| OCR Text |
Show THE RAILROADS COMPLAIN Or Clntc'ii .lsciarnl Manj Moi TroIcsK The board cf Bqualiralion was filrly deluged with protects against Asc-or Clute valuations last nigliL Mayor Scott presided, and Conncilmea Lynn, Noble, I'cm-broke, I'cm-broke, WoktmLoIni, Karriclc, Tick-ard, Tick-ard, Heath and SiialTord were present. pres-ent. The railway companies made vigorous protests an J lawyers Haik' ness and Williams denounced the unjn't valaatioh". Judge Hatkness tooi tlio Moor lirvt, an J reai the following t'rte-meut: The city council of Salt Like City, s-ittinga? a board of iiuillzr. lien: Tlie llio Grand WiU.-rn railway coiuany comnlnitn ol the nsfi-.t-nieut or the lots and blockfi uamed In the annexed Khcdule and asks an abatement of the assecnteiil. The system on which the tiaess ments ia made, m your petitioner believes, ), errnrjpous, and I.-ada to urdiB-tacd oppressive results. The eto- are a-?e5ed, tlie improvements, tlie track as another Improvement, and the machinery i-paSalily. In asc-iiig tlie lots no deduction is made for the right or wav whkh snould beapart or the mileage. AH thfe Iota are held for pre-ent or future ue in counectloa nlth the whole line of road. The cortireny auinot sell them and no Che would uuj tliem. What they might be worth If the railroad is removed is nut material, for it ia an iminsaible car. There mut beadiQerencein Uie conditions between projierty held only for a eclal ut and which cannot be bought or yold, and hence lias no niirket value, and property which can be bought and (old and put to any use the owner may cho-c The value by front foot may be applicable to the latter klud of propertj, bat such a system of valuation should rst app'y to proierly w hlcb Cannot l fold b the front foot, and can onlj be fold or used in connection by the w hole road. The Valuation by mileage i-lmuki cover all the road lwj for right or way, and Midi acctwrh as are necetry to Derate the road, ami as to other proper! for slio:-. et--, It should be taxed at what it Is reasonably worth to the whole road, ir i4iDrty in tho vicinity ral-cs In price, the owner or railroad pro-erty pro-erty cabnot git advantage cr it. because it ciuuot sell. I.ven if the aseftncnl Is right In thwjry, the valuation is Wjiercvut too high. The schedule auncxed shows the county valuat'ou or li.e sime lots, nliich vas made at 5273, Mo. and abateil lij the loard or tiiuahialion to $239.10. The city valuation on the same projierty is Stil.iWO, about 4 ir cent, al-ov tht county avetnients. The com-p com-p my regard' csutity values too high, aim t'ut the city valuation should be reduced at least to that or the count. Ite-pedfully submitted, Tiik Itio Gkamii: Wicn.RW RAiiiWAi CO. i'er Hennett, Marshall . itradlev. Attorneys. Attached t j this statement was a schedule show Ing in detail hat was :toul in the "-tatttnent. Ju Jge Harkucss said that Clute's nitli3 1 of acing railroad pro-erty pro-erty was altogetlier wrong and unwarranted. un-warranted. The statement read was true, and he suggested that, if the board was not familiar with the prorty,Uuy hould appoint a committee com-mittee to investigate. Mr. Williams folloacl next for the L'mon I"ariflc, and he was armed with the following t-Ule-niciit: To tte CVf ijOHoCdof Sa'C Ijzix; Ittg, Hoard of Hjuiittzatlon: Gentlemen. rtererriug to the valuations val-uations for city a-Msment Air ISfti pla-eJ on the rollouing items or LTnion r.in Ac (Oregon Short Line A Utah A Northern Itiiluay) prjp-crt, prjp-crt, ic T.'oik S. pM A ?M9,50 iT allies traik . . 37,bO.) j W awl 3xl0,lot 4, Mock 'w, plat A, and lUxll, lot 5, block tw, dnt A i'KXO Uits 2, 3, -1, awl 5, block , plat A BtykM Lotal, 7, and 3, andHlx , hf , block Wi, plat A 9 i.OOO These valuations, except on tract 1, arc about SO rur cent greater than the amounts placed on the property by nitt Lake County, and it la re liectfully a-ked that the valuation be reduced as follows Ou lands in block 55, A, tofJ,; nn lauds in block 65, A, to SJO.tm, on lands in block 9-. A. to Skt.OiW: on lauds in block SO, A, to $o",(Mi. We believe thi request to lie reasonable, rea-sonable, after considering tlie cir-cuai-tanci-. the comjarisous and the principles which we think sliould gjvern in asealug property or tlii clas. We belie e that ill assessing Mich depot lands an allowance shoulJ be made fur a reasonable right or waj a belonging with the track and being a.--es-ed with It M-paratelyat a rate per mile. We lielievu it to be ralr In Hich casc-i to allow a diller-enee diller-enee of at leatt lftl per cent in favor of the railway as against adjoining business projierty, as railway proi-erty proi-erty ia u-ed for railway purposes only, and the adjoining proierty is aflected favorably for busiucKi ir-iurioes ir-iurioes in a greater projiortion hi reason of the location of railway tra'-ke. Attention is called to (he fact that about oue-half the di-tauce covered cov-ered by the 5. miles a.-essed at $10,-i-M per mile is oub-idc tiie platted limiLs of the city, which districts derive but llltle benefit from the city tax, and in which the city valuations valu-ations are gererally understood lo be (very proivrly, we believe very much lower than the county valuations. valua-tions. Ten thousand dollars m mile for track was the amount returned re-turned by Uie conipau. but at that time there was general coufu'Ion concerning the interpretation of tlie new law, etc, and mmy valuations at first placed on railroad property have been decreased largely by the various county boarJa of equalization. equaliza-tion. In view of the above, and in consideration con-sideration or tlie poor condition or the track on January 1, lS'JO, and tlie reconstruction or the track and yards now- under way (which will make practically a new road before next j ear), w e request a reduction on track to SS.OOU per mile, if tlie distance is allow ed to slant as at present ass-sd. Very rerectrully, Aliiekt Wcioioock. Tax Auditor. 1. L. Williams, Attorney. Mr. Williams said that from the earliest times the tax gatherer Iiad been an unpopular personage, and Mr. Clute bid fair to Increase Ihe ancient odium attached to the office. of-fice. He had proceeded to assess railroad property not authorized by law. Mr. William? aUo objected to ClJte's assessment on the capital stock, etc., or the Utah National Ilank. That institution commenced bu-luess lu June last and j et Clute asss-ed It Tor the year 1SW. This was a violation or the spirit or all legislation on taxation. Mr. Clute said he had oulyas-sefel oulyas-sefel the bank for a portion of tlie year. Mr. Rowe, representing Z. C. 5LI. shoe factory, took the floor and said: We are as?es-eJ at about $91,000 Most of the members hero are members mem-bers of the city cojndl, and for years we have been advertising our city a the world and endeavoring to get manufactories to be established here. My company has shown its filth In the city, and is an enterprise enter-prise deserving to be fostered. I ask you to remit the whole of the assessment, assess-ment, and if you do so I proniice that we will invest the money in ad-litioaal machinery anJ thus increase in-crease the usefulness or the Institution Institu-tion by giving employment to additional ad-ditional bands. David McKenzle objected to Clute's valuation of $H,000 on his property on West Temple Street. The Eimo property was valued by the county at 10,000, andlait year he city valuation was $3930. MEH M IKBH MHnHH I J. II. Almond thought Clutch valuation or his lot on Third North Street,. ll,5t, wza excessive. J, lu Maxwell owned a lot in tho Ninth Ward which Clute valued at $XuJ, and lie considered this too hizh. Harriet Hocking owned a lot In Uie Twelfth Ward, which Cluto va-lued va-lued at $5300, while the county assessor as-sessor made it S1.M0. She considered Clutcrs figures exceaive. Mary A. WooIIey owned a lot on tho corner of Second South and Sec- j ond Kast, which the city assessor valued at J5I.00J. while the county assessor valued It at 523,0). Mrs. WooIIey did not think Mr. Clute waaJusUtled in making such a high, valuation. Orson A. VooUcy ruaJe objection Wills property lu block 59, plat F, bilng valued at $56J. Tlie county valuation ws sstim. H. A. WooIIey owned a lot on -nlrd South which w valued at 7KD, while the county valuation was only $320 J. He considered the latter figure hlh enough. William ICirkam olijectcel to Clute's valuation of USX) on his property on Sixth SouUi Street. The county valuation on the same property prop-erty was $700. 11 IJrice bought a lot on Second East Street during the boom for $fW, Clute valued it at $bl00. Mr. Hrice MlidhewuulJ like to find a purchaser at Clute's figures-George figures-George Hewlett oljected to Clute's valuation of $2,545 on his lot in th-Thlrdward, th-Thlrdward, which was valued bV the county at iUQOS. Sophia Nadlc purchased a lot ou Fourth South Street, in November, for $ 1,100. Clutevalued it at .,. an 1 the laJy thought Clute was oil" hlslnse. 1). L. MurJock owned property on G. street, which Clute valued at S3,"0), Thi was more than the roperty would tell for, and he con-eUercd con-eUercd it uuju.t. O. C Johnon on netl a small lot on Oak Street which Clute valued at s.",37ii, while Uie county made it $501. He thought tile city was nrich to h'gti. JUrijert L'atrick stated that he owned a Iit in the Eighteenth ward, and a public ditch took up 112 fret of Ida laud The property was valued by Clute at 4V1, anJ in view of Urn circumstances lie con-rfderd con-rfderd this too high. William M. Alilerson thought t iiile'n valuation of $, ou Ills lot in tliesjixth ward Wasexee Ive. J. M. llailey had a lot oa Second Sec-ond North Street, which he pur ehised two jears au fir l,l. Clute valued It at $I7,2Akand Mr. ilalky considered that outrageously hll'. Ueor'e Onensliaw oMected to Clute's valuation of $u,00u on his lot in the Eighteenth ward. J. It. Toronto, representing the Toronto estate, oljevted to Clute's vt! nation ol his property in Uie Eighteenth Ward of $ t,4W, as agaia-t the county valuation of ?:.-OW. ?:.-OW. riiesime projierty waa valued val-ued by tlie city U't jear at Ss,7iJ. Mrs. Hurrou s stated that Clute had alued her merchandise at !,- maro than it was worth. K. M Uenedict owned a lot in the " xtli Wanl whi.ii Clute alued at $11,700. Mr. Ilsnedict stated that he would be very glaJ to sell out at Clute'K figures. Harriet D. I'.llerbeck.of lucSevcn-tcetllll lucSevcn-tcetllll Ward, directed to Clute's aUalIou or $2I,u on her roiitr-t roiitr-t v . The cou ut valuation was $1 1,-4W. 1,-4W. M. J. Iambourue, of Uie Seven-tteuth Seven-tteuth Ward, thought the avst-sor's v.ilinlkm on her hit. $sS50, was ex-ce-Stive. Eliza Kennedy, or the Nine tec -nth Ward, owned a lot w hkli the ass-sor va!ied at $9''''. It was too h'gh. II. Harris was aesci on $iX) Improvement. He had no imjivc-inents imjivc-inents and diJn't jiropise to ;ay for ani-. W. C. Miller, of Uie seventeenth Ward, thought the valuation piaccd on his jirwjwrty, $17 u, was excet-sie. excet-sie. Ed. Lovesy, according to the an. seswr, owned jiroirt worth $50l). tr. Ljvesy dhln'l agre-e with the aeor Annie Marks ol jjecled to Clu'e"., v ilualion of i)l ou tier lot in the Eleventh Ward. E. II. Price uwnisl a Int which Clute valued at $510). He would like to sell it for 5"i ). The estate of 15. 15. Margetf thought Clute' valualHm on I heir jcojiertv, $21 9J0, was $l,8 too high. W. II. I'olsom's ropcrty was valued at $1, 9 J J, uhieit lie conid-cnlcxceslve. conid-cnlcxceslve. The county valua-Uou valua-Uou wasSlijirw. E A. K ler's lut was va'ued by ( 'lute at $i 1 1 1, w bile the count a e-or nuvk- it ),! He thought Clute was flight. John Dirwr 'a jimpcr" on Third Mth .1 valued by Clute at $11,-vManlb $11,-vManlb the county at$S,0-W. He thought the latler's figures were high enough. T. E. Ta lor's property on Third South was valued by Ckite at $T9t-000 $T9t-000 and by the county at $27,iiW. He lhcught Clute!. valuation was excessive-. L. C. Trent stated that Chile's valuation on Eraser A Culmcr's stock wassluil, while the count made It $1, '-KM, and Uie count was right. C'lule was asked as lo whom he-got he-got his figures from and lie replied, "Joe Galigher." J. T. Chamberlain of the Fifteenth Fif-teenth Ward, oijectcd to ("lute's valuation of Sts,'") on his kit in the Fifteenth AVard. This was considerably consid-erably more tlrai it was worth. Receiver Lawrence made a vigorous vig-orous kick against ('lute's valuatiou r the Tithing Hou-e projierty, $151.90 . Tlie cuuuty wir valj-ed valj-ed it at $7J,7i). Mr Lawrence thought Clute muit have as-essed the place as busiuesa projierty.whlch it was not, an I it wouIJ be a long time befole it could Is-. Milan Alwood's projierty at the corner of First 1 iast mid Seconi South streets was valued by Ciulo at $SM0, while the county iut it at $5S,000. The fullowiug Jierrom askesl to liave their taxes remitled ou account of inability to ay: J. J. Wicii, Nineteenth Ward, $10.20; Mrs. A. Jensoti, Tenth WarJ,$l; John Conlan, Nineteenth Ward, Mrs. Ericksou, Ninetecntli Ward, $10 49. This closed the work for the evening- . . |
