OCR Text |
Show STATE BOARD ; ' ONSTATE TAXES The State Board of Equalization and the Publisher of This Paper Eschange Letters on Taxation The Stats Board Want3 to Count Only Transcontinental Track in Considering Railroads, While the Standard Takes the State Board's Own Public Printed Reports For It Why the State Board Delays Its Action in Tliis Matter Until Today, Can Woll Be surmised The First Attack on the State Board System of Assessment Was made Last February Febru-ary and again at the Provo Convention in Tuly Last, But the Eoard of Equalization Kept Quiet Until Today Why? Fortunately Fortu-nately the Standard Has the Official Reoords of the State of Nevada in Its Office by Which It Plainly Shows That the Standard Stan-dard Figures Have Been Right All the Time. Open Letter. Salt Lake City. Utah, Utah, November Novem-ber 1. 1312. Mr William Glasmann. Ogden. Utah. Dpar Sir: For the past fow days you have been publishing in the Ogden Og-den Standard statements concerning tho assessments of railroads in Utah, and in connection therewith, purported figures to 'the effect that railroads in Utah are not paying as much tnx in proportion to mileage as In adjoining tates You have stated that the trans-con-tlncntal railroads in Utah are assesn-ed assesn-ed per mile as follows (Standard did not sav continental railroads Ed): Denver & Rio Grande S13.000.00 San Pedro. Los Angelos & Salt lake 12,000.00 Oregon Short Lino 22,000 no Central Pacific 19.000 00 .Union Pacific 21'5M Western Pacific 10,300.00 You have, however, omitted to state that the figures given by you are not for main track alone, but are tho average av-erage of the assessment levied on main tracks, additional tracks, side and storage tracks, switches and abandoned roads and branches; and ou have failed to state that all other classes of property belonging to railroads rail-roads such as real estate, terminals, improvements, rolling stock, franchise. supplies on hand, ruachinerv anj om-er om-er personal prooerty are also assessed assess-ed bv this board, and should be addeJ to tlie aerago given by you (this was done. Ed), which when figured, ns the adjoining states have been figured, fig-ured, would greatly Increase tho average av-erage total per mile of what is the actual' ac-tual' main track of these roads, ns main track Is considered in tho adjoining ad-joining states These adjoining states have systems sys-tems of assessment of railroads, which require the assessment of the road in theso states as a whole, and this whole assessment is apportioned to the whole road in proportion to the number or miles of main line within the state Acain you fall to state that the laws of Utah require the assessment or railroads separately and in detail as to classes of property, such as main track, additional or second track branches, switches, and all real estate, es-tate, improements, rolling stock, franchise and machinery, supplies and other proncrty owned by them (al! this was included by the Standard. Ed.). r . Taking the assessment of tnese trans-continental roads In Utah as a whole and dividing that assessment b the number of miles of main line (the Standard did that Ed.), as main line is considered In the adjoining states, which you have used to obtain your figured, It would give for assessment purposes In Utah, the following average aver-age per mile; Denver & Rio Grande $33,329.00 San Pedro. Los Angeles & Salt Lake 20.000.00 Oregon Short Line 40,344.00 Central Pacific 44.CG7.00 Union Pacific 30,000.00 Western Pacific 11.S49 00 You also fall to inform your readers that the levy on each dollar differs materially In each state, being regulated regu-lated by the practice followed In making mak-ing valuations, nnd that It Is the levy, per dollar, more than the valuation which determines the amount of the tax to be paid (The Standard told all that. Ed ). On account of threats having been made some time ago that an attack would bo made upon this board and it6 work, and anticipating the publication publi-cation of misleading statements for political purposes, as you have heretofore here-tofore done, we took the precaution to obtain exact and absolutely correct flgureB showing the amount of tax paid by each of these trans-continental roads In the adjoining and other statefl through which they run, and notwithstanding the fact of the exorbitant exor-bitant tax levied in Idaho last year and the further fact that tho average tax of the Union Pacific In Nebraska Includes Its Immense Omaha terminals termi-nals we find that jn every Instance tho tax pad In Utah 1b above- the general gen-eral average, as la Bhown as follows: Utah over general averago on; Donver &. Rio Grande, per roile.f 143.22 Sap Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake, per mile S5.0G Oregon Short Lino, per railo. . , . 1J3.03 Union Uacif 1c, per rollo ,.,... 7&.1J4 Through an oversight the Western Pacific was not asked for the Information Informa-tion given above and th,e Southern Pacific has not yet complied with our request. These figures we feel are as conclusive con-clusive answer to your Btatempnt that railroads In Utah do not pay as much tax per mile as they do in surrounding States (Figures are all wrong. Ed.). As to your broad assertion that the property of tho common people la as-Beeped as-Beeped at 100 per cent of Its value (Standard never Bald it Ed.) It can best be anBwered by requesting each taxpayer to exarnlno his notice received receiv-ed from the county assessor as to the value placed upon Hi" property, for apncBmnt purposes, and then ask his conscience what bis, property lp actually actu-ally worth (The Standard said from 35 to 100 per cont, which Is true. Ed.). For a verification of these etate-menta etate-menta we would pay that the records of thla offlco aro always opon for Inspection. In-spection. Jn conclusion w0 desire to Impross upon tho rcadera of thiB letter that this board Is essentially non-partisan in its membership and it consists of two RopubllcanB and two Democrats, and wo alono are responsible for valuations val-uations placed upon proporty aBHeaaed ub. By Ordor of the Board, JOHN WATSON, President, The Answer. Nov. 1, 1912. John Wataon, President State Board of Equalization. State of Utah Sir: Ypur letter of this morning re-, celvod. I find you are figuring; on p. wroqg baBls and that yau are mis- i taken and that you do not quote the Standard exactly right. I have called at tho office of your board In Salt Lake City and find that there Ls very little difference between the railroad assessment of this yeai and what It was In the year 1010 tho laat public printed report of your board. Therefore, your 1910 published report applies fairly to this year's assessment. as-sessment. You say the Donver & Rio Grande, is taxed $33,329 per trans-continental mile. On page 3C of your published report, 1910, it 13 stated that the said railroad has 737 miles of main track In "Utah. If, then, this 737 miles Is assessed by you at $33,329 per mile, tho total assessment for the D & R. G railroad must be over 24 million dollars, but I nptc that ihc total assessment as-sessment of that road by your board Is only ,$9,471,609. Where Is tho difference? dif-ference? Now divide this sum by 737 the number of miles of main track, and you will find that the main track of the said road s assessed at 513,000 per mllo Just as stated by the Evening Even-ing Standard, and not $33,329. as you claim. Now what is tho difference' You, Mr. Watson, would not deliberately delib-erately deceive the public What is tho difference7 I will tell you. I see you use the word "trans-continental" main track and that you have cut off all the branches of the said railroad You take $9,471,609, the assessment, which includes the branches, and divide di-vide It by the number of miles of one line from Ogden to Grand Junction Why do you cut out the Tlntlc branch, the San Pete branch, the Hcber Ckv branch, the Park City branch, .hc Bingham line etc.? You have assessed assess-ed them. Why do you refuse to let them sharo their own assessment per mile? You are mistaken. We have not failed to state that Utah assesses side tracks, rolling stock etc., In fact we have stated In the Standard that we would throw in all the property of the railroads every thing that your board assessed against them. By doing do-ing that and dividing It by the number num-ber of miles of main track, what do we find? Your total assessment of the Denver & Rio Grando railroad for everything Jn Utah bv your board Is $9,471,609, Now divide that by the mnin track as st.vted by your board (see page 36 of your last report) and It makes just $13 000 per mile. You are oven mistaken about us in-' eluding side tracks in the 737 miles.: because vour report says the D & R. G has 214 miles of side fack Now1 add those miles of side track to the 737 miles or main line and It makes 951 miles and that would reduce the assessment to 103s than $10,000 per mile. Hence, you aec, you arc mistaken. mis-taken. In order to get your figures of ?33,-000 ?33,-000 per mile lor the main track of tho D. & R. G. I find you have divided the total assessment on 737 miles by 293 miles Just the air line from Ok-den Ok-den to Grand Junction. Is that what you call fair Ycur official repirt shows that the $9,471,009 assessed against the D. & R G. Is on 737 miles main track and 214 miles side track. Wo have not Included the mileage of sidetracks. But you havo cut off 441 miles of track to get our figures. Why do you do that9 Here is the right way to figure tho D. & R. G. assessment- Divide the figures representing the total assessment of $9,471.C09 by actual ac-tual miles of main track on all main track miles assessed, and It leaver the assessment per mile at $13,000 But you do not do that You flm assess 737 miles of main track on all railroads of tho P. & R. G. ralhwiy and then djvldo tho total assessment by only 293 miles That Is so very unfair that I cannot find words to express ex-press my thoughts aver such a deliberate delib-erate effort to deceive the people In order to get your figures high per mile vou havo figured the same way on all the railroads and our answer an-swer above applies to all of the roads In the same manner. Now, to bIiow you that the other states do not figure as yon say they do, 1 give herewith statements from the published report of the Nevada state board of assessors, 1911 On page 70, tho main track of tho Central Cen-tral Pacific io assessed at $31,500 per mile On pago 71, tho Central Pacific Pa-cific aide tracks are assessed at $6,-000 $6,-000 per mile. You assessed the same road only half that for side tracks. Now please see what the state of Nevada Ne-vada does to the Central Pacific branches Page 71. Nevada &. Canlfornla branch. $14,000 per mile. Hazen & Fnllon branch, per mile, $s.aao. Virginia &. Truckee branch, per mllo, $S,500. I think, Mr Watson, this is enough to show you that the Nevada assessment assess-ment of the Central Pacific of $31,500 ner mile does not Include tho branch lines, but Ib In addition thereto. Further, Fur-ther, Mr. Watson. I want to s- that the Nevada assessment of the Central Cen-tral Pacific railway Is more than $31,-500 $31,-500 per mile, If we count all tho property prop-erty of the road as wo havo dono In Utah. I already have shown that Nevada assesses the Central Pacific side tracks $6,000 per mile. Wo do not even count that in our figures. "Wo want to be more than fair on this question. In Idaho tho figures would be still higher against you. There is only one way to figure this matter right and thnt Is to take all the property assessed to each railway and dlvldo that by the number of miles of main track, and not as you have done, only by the trans-continental track. Why do you say that the Standard said tho poor man is assessed at 100 per cent on the dollar? We said from 35 to 100 per cont on tho dollar. Your article comes too late today for spo-clftc spo-clftc correction of each orror you make, but tho foregoing should suffice You do not even answer the county treasurer's statement from Idaho and Nevada Whv nof Yours tiuly, |