OCR Interpretation


The interior journal. (Stanford, Ky.) 1912-1984, November 06, 1912, Image 2

Image and text provided by University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052023/1912-11-06/ed-1/seq-2/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

- - 4 "
t ly '
THt IHTCBHH JJUWAL 1TAMF0M. KttTtttltV
r - t i 1i fTHrM --
DOCKET
Of the Lincoln Circuit Court
NOVEMIER TRM. 1912.
Wcrfncstfav. Third Day
1 Commonwealth vs W. J. Edmis
Ion, No. 1.
2 snmc vs snmo No. 2.
3 save v Will Lee.
4 snmo vs Coleman Trnylor etc.
6 snme vs John Henry
6 same vs E. Hrown etc.
7 same vs K. Hrown.
8 snmc v J. E. I'ortman
9 samo vs Willinm Mirrrnv
10 name s Thos. Hicks etc.
11 same vs Dnvo Hicks
12 snmo vs Londo Dowell
13 same Anderson Carr, Jr. No. 1
14 snmo vs same No. 2
15 name vs Josh Wilson.
16 same vs G. C. Lutes No. 1.
17 same vs snme No. 2.
jr snmo vs Rm Ni 3
19 snme vs Sam O. Hocker
20 same vs Mat Reed. No. 1
21 same vs samo No. 2
22 same vs Chns. Baughraau No. 1
23 sauio vs same. No. 2
24 same vs Willinm Murray No. 1
25 snmo vs Arch Baylor
26 same vs John Hayes
27 same vs Andv Qcislor.
28 same vs Geo. Wells
29 same vs Penn Williams
30 same vs Geo. Settles No. 1
31 same vs same No. 2.
32 same vs same No. 3.
33 same vs same No. 3
33 snme vs International Harves
ter Co.
Thursday Fourth Day
1 Commonwealth vs Clias Woot-
en. No. 1
2 snmc vs snme No. 2
3 snme vs Allen Walker.
4 same vs W. M. Tinsley
5 same vs Clarence Sipples No 1
6 same vs same No. 2
7 snme vs Will Schooler
8 same vs Jns. Davis
9 pame vs John Conk No. 1
10 snme vs nme No. 2
11 snme vs Mat Reed. No. 3
12 same vs same No. 4
13 same vs Quinnie Fredrick
14 same vs L. F. Smith No. 1
15 same vs snme No. 2
16 same vs same Nb. 3
17 sunie vs Tine Jordan No. 1
18 same vs same No. 2
10 same vs James Reid
'20 sunie vs E Brown No. 3
21 same vs Alex Johnson
22 same vs Luther Brown etc.
23 same v- Thos. Cltnppell
24 same vs John Lane.
'23 snme vs Tol Burlesson No. 1
2f same vs same No. 2
27 same vs snme No. 3
28 same vs same No. 4
29 same vs same No. 5
30 Same vs Thos. Chancellor No. 1
31 same vs same No. 2
32 same vs Willinm Murray No. 2
33 same vs Mrs. William Murray
No. 1
34 snme vs same No. 2
35 same vs Vera Sims, No. 1
30 same vs sumo No. 2.
37 same vs same No. 3
38 same vs same No. 4
30 same vs Elmer Gastineau
40 same vs Fred CHntis
41 same vs Ed Patterson
42 same vs Moso Berry etc.
43 samo vs B. P. Murtin
44 snmo v William Lewis
45 same vs William Ttout
4fi same vs Pat tie Adams
Ordinary Old, Monday First Day
1 Glass and Johnson vs J. G.
2 A. llorton vs J. U. Hurtzog.
3 Richard Foley vs Ira Logan.
4 B.D. Holtxclaw vs. Wm.Cordier
5 W. C. Shanks vs City of Stnn-
ford, Ky.
(i Crub Oi chard Bank. Co. vs A.
C Dunn.
7Jns. McCormnck vs C.J. Sipple
8 D.C. Burchfleld vs Jas. Holman
9 Krueger & Son vs Lincoln Co.
10 F. M. Hines vs XV, af. Ingram.
11 Tuscarora Fettilizer Co. vs J.
W. Acey.
12 Bustin Telephone Co vs Cum
berland Telcpione Co.
13 Hall Anderson vs J.L.Carpenter
14 J. W. Oooch by etc. vs C. N. O.
& T. P. Ry Co
15 J. T. Edwards etc vs T. B. Ed
vmids etc ,
10 Leonard Kranz vs F. M. Ware.
17 Ii. G. Gooch & Sou vs Hundley
Dishon. ,
18 J. R. Russell vs F. Schmtzler.
jo-oiiver Typewriter Co. vs C. G.
Koker.
on K. A. Mlddlcton vs UP. Logan.
21 Ora Brnckett vs Modern Broth
erhood of America.
22 G. T. Proctor vs W. U. Tele
graph Co.
23 O.O.Speaks v City of Stanford
04 Julia Lockowitz vs A. Ronnker.
25 J. A. Robitison v L. & N. R. Co.
, r II. Moore vs Geo Stntum.
27 Equitable Bank & Tiust Co. vs
Reed and Dislion.
28 Lula McAninch vs M.S. Russell
29 W. II. TruylorV exor vs Ash
lock & House.
30 II. V. Sowder vs E. L. bowder.
3111. R. Kidwell eto vs I & N.
32 Alvin Padgett vs CvN.O. & T.P.
33 Cfaas Adams vs J. C. Cummins.
34 Same vs. Lloyd Brock.
35-J. K. Banks vs E. II. Ballard.
36 A.B.A. Wilson vs Dak Robb &c
S7-W. O. Worker Vs L. & N.
38 Grove Reed vs C.N.O. & T. P.
3 M. R. Caweft r sane.
4 F. G. Carsei vs sane.
ORDINARY APPEARANCES
MeMky Fkit Day
1 T. W. Jones vs I & N. Co.
2 Annie Bell vs snme.
3 Hnmhurjr-Bremcn Firo Ins. Co.
vs W. S. Fish etc.
4 Citizsn Bank of Hogersvillc,
Tenn., vs Cloy R. Coleman etc.
5 Stnto Bnnk & Trust Co. vs M.
Tnylor etc.
0 Joseph Schloschtcr vs CNO &
TP Rnilrond Co.
7 W. E. Perkins vs E. S. nnd
Mack Fisher.
8 Security Mutual Life Ins. Co.
vs G. D. Florence gdn.
9 C. L. Cnrtcr vs G. W. Koger.
10 Crab Orchard Banking Co. vs
Lnmnr Thompson etc.
11 Snmo vs E. L. Sowder etc .
12 Gloho Fertilizer Co. vb J. L.
' Baueh.
13 W. F. Francis vs CNO & TP Co
14 J. T. Butler vs samo.
15 White Concentrated Water &
Salts Co. vs R. C. Wliite.
16 J. IL Pritcliett etc vs. J. A.
Tucker.
17 W. II.
Traylor.
Trnylor's exor vs U. S,
EQUITY APPEARANCES
Wednesday Third Day
1 Nichols & Shepherd Co. vs
O. Russell.
2 Barbara A. Faulconhorry
B.
s
Henry Fnulconbcrry.
3. Sylvester Newton etc vs Mar
garet Newton etc.
4 Martha Hubble vs Dink Hubble.
5 J. A. Givens vs J. L. Beck.
6 Mnttie V. Kirby vs City of
Stanford etc.
7 City of Stanford vs J. M. Phil
lips etc.
8 J. G. Hcndrickson vs Mary
Hcndrickson.
9 J. G. Carpenter vs City
F.
of
Stanford.
10 B. M. Kennedy vs W. D.
Sprinkles.
11 John Newell vs Ethel Newell.
12 Wiiyncsburg Deposit Bank vs
O. A, Richards etc.
13 W.B. Hubble gdn vs Ethel Cam
den etc.
14 Idu Hopkins vs Geo. Hopkins.
15 S. M. Oweju vs W. B. Goode.
Ki J. R. Edmiston vs Albert Fish.
17 Citizens Trust Co. Jefferson
vil.'e, Ind., vs J. W. Guest etc.
18 W. L. McCnrty gdn vs Alice
Lund etc.
19 Mnttie Lee vs Thos. Lee.
20 Mary E. Dich vs Conrad Disch
21 F. O. Gooch vs Mary A.Wallace
22 Justine Goode vs Ruth Goode.
23 Burton S. Hilt The Columbia
Trust Co.
24 Robert Hubble vs Walker Hub
ble. OLD EQUITY
Sigler ndmx vs J."D. Bu-
1-M. V
chiinnn ndmx.
2 J. T. Leavell gdn vs
Allie
M.
Powell etc.
3 Mnlindn Havs vs John Gray.
i II. J. McRoberts vs J.S. Jack-
mnn.
5 J. II. Carter vs Wm. Martin.
6 W. L. Wcller & Son vs
John
Curoenter.
7 G. W. Singleton vs II.II. Lognn
8 Martin McCormnck vs Kate
Giwni
9 Clms. Reed vs Annie Dayton.
10 N. B. Hays vs Gale Brnckett.
11 J.M. Phillips vs Joe Upthegrovc
12 T. O. Lovclnnd s F. M. Ware.
13 M. V Sigler vs Wilt. Cole
14 Fannie Hutchison vs Ruth Jones
15 Farmers Homo Ins Co. vs E. P.
Bailev etc.
16 J. R. Edtniston vs S. M. Holmes
17 Annie Landy v.s RitTe & Jones.
18 J. M. Phillips vs Wm. Lackey.
19 Annie Napier vs Hendloy Na.
pier. etc.
20- -U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
vs W. J. Edmiston.
'il D M. Lipps hrs. vs D M. Lipps
llUirs.
22 M. C. Thompson etc vs Berry
Howard.
23 F. P. Bishop vs Josiah Bishop,
ndmr.
24 J. P. Hozelwood vs W.N. ILan.
25 J. G. Lan- vs J. F. Uazelwood.
26 State Bank & Trust Co.vs Dud
ley Reed.'
27 -W. D. Ramsey vs II. II. Logan.
23 W.B. Bryan vs E. Totten &c.
29 Willow Springs Distilling Co.
vs M L. Goode.
30 Moses SUiart's hrs vs Moses
Stunrt's hrs.
31 Mnttie Yocum vs C. C. Smith.
32 J. JL Cook vs E. J. Joslin etc.
33 G. W. Shelton vs Geo. Hopkins.
34 Geo. Burton eto vs Jns Burton.
35 Thos. Jolmston vs P. Dishon.
30-Gnar Scott & Co.. vs W. R.
Dillion.
37 M. P. Peacock vs Cora Russell.
3S- Mry Grnnt vs Aaron Grant.
39 John Jackson vs Rich Wilson.
40 Annie Stoner vs Robt. Stoner.
41 G. W. Carter eto vs Lincoln
County.
42 Jennie Carpenter vs Dorio Car
penter. 43 Central Ky. Carriage Co. vs W.
P. Kincaid.
44 J. I. Case Threshing Machine
Co vs C. A. Moore etc.
5 Lincoln Co. Fiscal Court vs
Hustonvillo & Coffey's Mill Pike.
46 Ben Fuulconer vs J.C. Cummins
47 E. T. Beazley vs Jas Burton eto
48 Sallie Adams vs G. M. Adams.
40 Jas Foster vs Susie Foster.
50-Julia A.Owsley vs W.W. Owsley
51 Joe Giveiu hrs vs Joe Given hrs
62 Ed Alcorn ndm vs Ewline Arm.
strong etc.
M B. G. Taylor vg King's Mtn.
Telephone Co.
51 A. O. Faulcouer vs Dave Burton
53 John Petrey va Geo. Petrey
56 Modern Brotherhood of AraerU
rn vs J. P. Grubbs
67 Cnthern Hodge vs Frank Hodge
68 M. C. Delk ndm vs Geo. Estes
etc
69 Willis Logan vs John Vnrnon
CO W. M. Mnsscv vs II. Floyd
61 Tho Fen-ill's ndm vs Thos.
Fcrrills hrs.
G2 Citircns Bnnk of Brodhcad vs
J. II. Dickey etc
63 Citircns Bank of Neptune vs
J. 11. Hutchison.
64 Crab Orchard Banking Co., vs
Bello V. Dunn.
Cm Enniest Gibson vs Mnlissn Gib
sou.
66 John Johnston vs P. L. Elnm.
07 W. C. Pettus etc vs L. A. Pot.
hi", etc
68 Catherine Wnrrcn's hrs vs Mary
Warren etc.
69 B. O. Govcr vs Bcttie Williams,
70 Minnie Weaver vs Wilis Weav
er.
71 II. Wode's hrs vs H
hrs.
72 Mary Bniloy vs Chns,
7.1 Alfred Pence etc vs
WarrenT
Wade's
Bailey
Mary S.
74 S. M. Owen vs Trustees McKin.
noy Graded School.
75 W. P. Buchanan vs Alice Land
etc
76 Louisville Tin & Stove Co., vs
Garland Singleton.
77 J. Y. Robinson vs William
Lnckoy.
78 Lula Mclninch vs L. M. Bell etc
79 C. O. Boono vs Will Goodmnn.
80 W. L. Dishon ndm vs L. D.
Harney, No. 1
81 snme vs same No. 2
82 Lola Sowder vs Levi Sowder
83 Larkin Wells vs Mary L. Car
tcr.
84 Arch Scanlnii vs James Scanlan
85 J. F. Robinon vs Wcss Pen
man etc.
80 F. F. Bobbitt vs W. D. Ramsey.
871). A. Pruitt etc vs C. G. Coker
otc.
83 J. N. Cash vs John CnTrollton
etc.
SO Chas. Robhins vs Geo. Fish.
90 Sabra P. Reid etcs J. D. Eads
etc.
91 Marv E. Ferrill vs Mary Jane
Ferrill
Hansfdrd., W. B.
Old Equity 60.
' Harlan. Jay.
Old Equity. 72.
Swfnebroad, G. B.
Old Ordinary 30.
Stone. Geo.
Old Ordinnry 10.
Shanks. W. H.
Old Ordinary. 4.
McRoberts P. M.
Old Equity 3 4 6 11 16 18 22 2"
32 35 38 53 57 79 80 81 84 87 89.
Ordinary Old. 4 5 7 10 13 14 19
23 26 31 35.
Ordinnry Appenrance 8 15
Epuity Appearances 13
Alcorn, J. W. & K. S.
Old Equity 8 20 34 52
Old Oidinnrv 8 12 14 25 30 32
35 37 38 39 40
Ordinary Appearances 12 5 6 9
11 13 14.
Equity Anpenranees. 5 6.
Paxton. J. B.
Old Equity 2 21 28 29 30 50 64
68 74 77 85 87.
Old Ordinary 0 7 17 21 22 23
29.
Ordinary Appearances 7 10 15
17.
Equity Appearances 7 10 12 21.
Saunders J. N.
Old Equity. 9 12 23 31 39 43 73
76 78 92.
Old Ordinary 3 11 19 21 28 30.
Burch W. S.
Old Equity 1 7 33 41 45.
Old Ordinnry -15 21 31 37
Bobbitt. F. F.
Old Eqiutv 1 2 3 27 40" 48 49 70
82 83 86.
Old Ordinary 33 34.
Equity Appenrances 8 14 19.
Harding. Robert.
Old Ordinary 6 14 32 38 39.
Ordinnry Appearances 2 6.
RawUnqs. I. W.
Old Ordinary. 16.
Ordinnry Appearances 6.
Purvear. E". V.
Old Equity 74.
Old Ordinary 3.
Ordinary Appearances 6.
Menefee. John
Equity Appearances. 1 13 24.
Malene, W. C.
Equity Appearances 3.
Owslfiv J S
Old Equity 5 50 ill 69 87 00.
Old Ordinnry 2.
Ordinary Appenianees 1 3 12 16
Equity Ap'ienmnces 9 15 10 17
Hill. T. J.
Old Equity 17 24 25 29 58 60 71
8S
Old Ordinary 18 24.
Equity Appenrances 9. 22.
Florence G. D.
Old Equity 10 14 15 17 19 24
2. fJU 27 29 36 37 40 42 47 01 04 00
07 74 75 76 78 89 00.
Ordinary Old. 1 2 8 9 10 11 10
18 20 32.
Equity Appenrances 11 18 20.
Baflby. C. C.
Old Equity 44
Equity Appearances 1.
Ordinnry Appearances 4.
IVmlHlotfn, n. Ii.
Old Equity 50.
Old Ordinary, 20 20.
wmiMM c c
Old Equity 00 63.
Old Ordinary. 15. ,
TAXATION OF PUBLIC
SERVICE CORPORATION!.
Be EmivN te Push Suits
McCreary's Statement
The question of mlcqttiito taxation
for tho big corporations which do
business in Kentucky is receiving
considerable ntteutiou just now.
Justus (foehrl, n brother of Ken.
tuckv'n innrtyred governor, is nmk
iug n fight to have the ideus which
were fathered by his brother, twclvo
cnrn ngo that of making the cor-
IHiiatiotis bear thu chief burden of
tnottiou earned into effect now,
Mr. Ooebel has written an open let
ter to Gov. McCrenvv, the other
state officials nnd the people at
large, setting forth his views about
the mutter. Gov. McCrcary has also
Issued a statement in icgard feo the
matter, both of which arc given be
low :
October 3lit, f 91 2.
To His Excellency, Governor James B
McCrcary: to all Adralnltr( and
Legislative offlcers of the State and
to all citizens of the Commonwealth
who are Interested In equal and ual
form taxation:
"Tell my friends to be brave and
fearless and loyal to the great com
mon people."
These last words ot my assassinated
brother, William Ooebel, have a sacred
significance to me and when In Sep
tember, 1909, I again commenced tc
take an active interest In our State's
affairs, It was not to gain political fa
vor, for there Is no office I would
have; but It Was with hope and con
fldence that my work would, during
the administration of the present state
officers, open up "an opportunity for
Kentucky to take up WlllUm Goebal'a
work where the assassin's bullet had
Interrupted It, and In that event every
department of our government would
give thereto by voice and action most
positive, vigorous and loyal support.
Relief Must Come.
Necessity for action In the tntorest
ot the people has grown as years have
passed until It has developed Into what
Is to-day a crying shame and from
which relief must come.
Too long, altogether too long, has
there 'been unjust discrimination
against the people, unjust and burden
some taxation upon the people, as
compared with what has been required
to bo paid by the big corporations of
our State. Corporation lawyers have
boastlngly said the death ot William
Goebel was a benefit to the corpora
tions. If this was true, the question
la, how much longer shall the people
be held In bondage becauso ot his
death?
God knows the corporations now
suing the State have been able to pro
cure (and the word procure Is used
advisedly) Immunity long enough from
paying their Just share ot the taxes.
A hundred million dollar increase
In the value of corporation property
for taxation opens a new era In the
State's affairs, and has awakened tho
people, and brought them to u realiza
tion of what has been done to them,
and there will bo a further awaken
ing, which will correct abuses equally
as great as unequal taxation. A true
awakening of the peoplo has come.
and henceforth every man who would
hold otttco must be a progressUc. and
no imitation will satisfy them; they
will sweep aside and Into oblivion as
old chaff any man who hesitates or
dares stand In the wny of betterment
ot conditions and improvement in ev
ery way for the whole peoplo.
Gross Undervaluation.
No one doubts, had William Goe
bel been permitted to live, that which
was done last month by the Board of
Valuation and Asessment would have
been done more than a decade ago,
and to-day, Instead of the large cor
porations fighting in the courts and
by sinister methods, endeavoring 'o
perpetuate unjust and unequal taxa
tion, to throttle the action ot this
State Taxing Board, the first to act ful
ly In the interest ot the people, they
would long ago have been paying Into
the State, county and city treasuries
their Just rroscrtias of taxes.
It is very evident that In Ken
tucky, as In other States, big corpora
tions will never pay a cent more of
taxes than they ore made to pay.
Take the case ot the C. & O. H. II.
In 1911 this road, on its entire sys
tem in Kentucky, paid taxes on a to
tal valuation ot only $9,313,270, where
as the street railway company of the
city ot I,oulsvlU was mado to pay on
a valuation of $10,800,000. The C. &
O. K. It. In 1901 paid taxes on a fran
chise valuation ot only $2,171,189, and
In 1911 on a valuation of only $2,743,
SS0, whereas, the Board found theli
1912 assessment should be $18,798,630
The C, N. O. & T. P. It. It- In 1901
paid taxes on a franchise valuation
of only $3,110,197, nnd In 1911 on a
valuation of only $3,659,320. whereas
the Board found their 1912 assessment
should be $10,674,200. The I. C. in
1901 paid taxes on a franchise valua
tion of only $1,989,870, sad in 1911 on
a valuation of only $4.510,3.'0, where
as the Board found their 1912 assess
ment should be $14,74G.8C7. The L.. &
N. II. It, in 1901 paid taxes on a fran
chise valuation ot only $6,504,879, and
in 1911 on a valuation of only $11,
899,200, whereas the Board found
their 1912 assessment should be $45,
428,074. The Covington companies tn the
past paid as little, proportionately, as
did most of the above mentioned com
panies, and without exception all
thesa conDanles aad the two others
I suing wanted the same assessments
for 1912 that they bad Ik 1911. The
HsKStsijjBHHsli'il
fsTsTsTBsTsTSSBSjBdikaiHk . -""LBT"sTsTsTsjmMBTsTHi 4sTsTsTssTsTaw--' Lw ssT"sTi
sTSSTSSTSKTSSTSr .V'iSTBSTiSTS - vt9TSSTSSTSSTSSTSSTSaTSVW'BSSTSSTSrv SJfaTSSTSSTS vtBShbhi
L jsjs)HBsKKsKKLIslJlsHL. :" vilZM
KaE!3Bsw Hil
k v-- ivMkv.--' ,,'" k.s.sBJiWns.H
Be "V; WHf jfl? .-fBsHHsaVHssHHssHBuflsHsHsHsHsHsHsl
1-jHKto IMPeHP l
JUSTUS GOMEL. GOV. J. ft. M'CREARY.
Kentucky Delegates From State at Lsrge te DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
CONVKNINON, BALTIMORE, JUNE, 1912.
Board ot Valuation and Assessment
based thefr 1912 assessments on con
vincing proof ot values placed before
them, aud the assessments aro uni
formly Just and fair, and ot the more
than four hundred corporations as
sessed, only seven have protested In
the courts, and these are among thoso
that have always proportionately paid
the least.
In tho last twelve years the State,
counties and cities have been robbed,
and the word robbed la the only word
that fits the case, of more Jhan ten mil
lion dollars In taxes.
In the years from 1902 to 1911, In
clusive, a period ot ten years, there
has been an average Increase In the
franchise assessments of the four larg
est railroads ot tho State or only IVi
per cent early, and this almost un
believable record ot astonishingly
small increases was made in tho ten
best j oars for earnings that the rail
roads of this country ever saw.
The picture here presented ot the
previous Inadequate franchise assess
ments Is astounding, but when one ex
amines Into tho situation regarding tho
tangible assessments mado by Halt
road Commissions of the properties of
six of tho corporations now suing the
State, the word "astounding" Is inado
quato and must be here supplanted bj
tho word dumfoundlng to state mor
correctly what the tanlgble assess
meat picture actually presents.
Work Is Delayed a Decadt.
Take the case ot the C & O. II. Ii
and the records show that the tangibl
property ot this company In 1S9!
twenty years ago, was assessed a
$S,019,5t7. In 1911 notwithstanding
the extensions made In mileage o
road, double tracking ot a vast system
acquiring much new real estate anc
probably more than doubling theli
equipment of engines nnd cars this
company's tangible property was as
sessed at only $6,270,270. or 21 per
cent less than in 1892, twenty years
ago.
In 1892 the market price of C. & O.
stock was around 11 ccntx, and to-day
the stock ot this company Is selling
nt 81 C cm, nnd the capital stock
lias been Increased to ono hundred
million dollars. Further comment to
show that our state lias jo: tabbed
is unnecssary. Tho tnng'bb property
of tho C, N. O. & T. P It. It. w.is as
secscd In 1911 for less than It was as-at-l
lu 1900, and but llttl more than
in 1890, notwithstanding the great tm
protementH mado by tho company.
Tho other railroads have beon similar
ly inadequately assessed on their tangi
ble property for many ears.
In May, 1910, a prominent official ol
one of the companies suing, stated that
the special Interests had In years past
controlled tho state's taxing boards,
and the records apparently prove he
told, the truth In that Instance. He
also stated that ho would control the
present Board ct Valuation and As
sessment, but In this be has proven an
Ignominious failure.
Board Acts For People.
To datn tho people havo won, aud th
Board of Valuation and Assessment,
consisting ot Henry M. Bosworth
chairman; Tom S. Rhea nnd C. F
Crecellus, has finished its work for
1912, and, thank God, for once It hai
acted in the Interest ot the people.
Until this year the Board ot Vnlua
tlon and Assessment has been con
trolled In the Interest ot the big cor
poratlons by some hook or crook, eith
r friendship, political favor rendered
or to be rendered, bribery or IntlmV
datlon, but never beforo has the Btate,
county or city been given what it was
rightfully entitled te.
The eight suits that have been
brought sgalnst the state must b
fought through sll federal and state
courts, and are ot vital Importance to
our people. They Involve for the state
$382,389, and for the county and city
taxing districts $823,396, or a total,
annually, ot $1,206,785.
The railroad companies, realizing
the magnitude ot this Sght and anx
ious to win out, not slone from a finan
cial standpoint, but to prevent the
great public denouncement that Ii
bound to come In the wake ot a vic
tory for the state, are calling up the
wonderful arrsy ot legal talent tbst is
at their command through the power
and Influence that comes ot the tre
saeadous amount of money represented
la their combined capitalisation ot sp
roilsaately one billion dollars.
Masttr Legal Minds.
Among the msster legal minds thai
are already engaged in prrprlng ths
defenso ot the suing corporations arc
Trabuc, I)olan A Cox, of Luulrvllle, fol
tho Illinois Central Uallroad Company;
Qalvin & Galvln, of Cincinnati, for the
Cincinnati, New Orleans A Texas Pa
cific Itallroad Company; John T. Shel
by & Son, of Lexington, for the Chesa
peake & Ohio Railroad Company, CoL
Henry L. Stone, Helm Bruce, C II.
Moorman, It. A. Colston, of Louisville,
and Rrowder Browdcr, nf Itusacll
vllle. for the LodUvlllo . Naihrllls
Itallroad Company; Beckham & Mc
Quown. ot Frankfort, and Krnst, Cas
satt & Cottle, ot Cincinnati, for the
South CoWngton & Cincinnati .Strrel
Railway Company and the I'nlon
Light, Heat and Power Company, Max
well, Itamicy & Ora) don, of Cincinnati,
for the Adams Express Company and
for tho Southern Express Company
In addition to this galaxy of legal
talent, tho suing corporations liau a
vast army ot busy workers who never
appear In the limelight or in the court
room, and they may be described as
research lawyers, accountants nnd
statisticians, who are a mighty sup
portive element to the men who will
present the cases and make the pleas
and arguments.
Without detracting one lota from
the splendid ability and known loyalty
to the state's Interests possessed by
the attorney general, James Uarnett,
nnd his three assistants, the common
wealth's legal force, as compared with
that of the corporations, must seem
Inadequate, Indeed; and when it Ii
taken Into consideration that the at
torney general's office has a tnultl
pllclty of cases and matters of state
to fully employ their attention, and
that tho present situation comes Id
the nature of an emergency unfore
seen and unprecedented In the state'i
history, tho urgent necessity for the
emploment of other able lawyers a
a supportive force to the attorney gen
eral becomes qulto apparent
Ability, known loyalty to the cause
and assured freedom from corporation
taint should bo the cause to govern
in tho selection ot attorney to assist
In the defenso of the state's interests
Justus Goebel's Interest.
My Interest In tbo work Just com
pteted by the board was, nnd is, dlf
fiTnt from, nnd greater than, that o!
any man In Kentucky or elscw here
even though ho may have been con
nected with tho work. .oc of my
Btate and love for and memory of m
assassinated brother, whose brain
work constructed and whose blood
stained the statutes which made It
possible to do what the Board of Valu
atlon aud Assessment has Just com
pleted, have compelled ot mo tho serv
Ice 1 have rendered in the matter, and
without official duty resting on me, 1
have given untiringly and almost con
Btantly moro than Ave months ot time
energy nnd study to these assessment!
In th Intercut ot the state ssd its pwi
pie, to the exclusion ot every other
Interest business and personal
Therefore, with such an Interest and
with the know lodge that I have gain
ed through my labors. I feel that I air
qualified, amply qualified, to mako at
appeal, lu the name of the 40u,000 tax
payers ot the state who furnish seven
eights ot tho revenue for the state'i
government, and who for many )cun
have withstood the burden of uuequn
taxation, to the administrative and
legislative officers ot tho state to sup
port the governor with unlimited
means for the necessary defense ol
the people's Interest and canes.
There aro men who lime said In
places that In the emplovmcnt of At
torney John L. Rich the state had gono
far enough, but to such men I would
say, "Is jour only Interest the welfare
of the people, and liavo ou proven
that there Is no other interest that Is
greater with )ou than thu people's In
terest!" Every Citizen Interested.
We have been, and are, dealing In
this with a matter which Is vital to,
and affects the comforts ot every
home, no matter bow humble, and the,
pocketbook of every taxpayer In the
commonwealth, be he laborer, me
chanic, farmer, merchant or of any
other rank or station. All have their
Interest In what we have been fight.
Ing for more nearly equal taxation
and relief from corporation oppression.
The question Is. shsll the cause of
our taxpayers be defended at the bsr
ot luUe B7 as array Q( counsel ot
the correct tsaa'srd and In kaephic
with the greatness ana importance or
these cases, which Involve, not only
$1,205,78$ this year, but millions upin
millions In years to come, and If the
assessments are upheld, mean to this
.n.r.!inn ami ceneratlons yet unborn
la Kentucky, losser tax to pay, and to
the state adequate revenue tor ory
purpose of governmont, economically
conducted.
"Most respectfully yours,
"JUSTUS GOEBEL"
The Govrrnnr' Slarrmenl
The Governor's htntcmeut follows:
"The letter f Mr. Justus Ooebel,
addressed to me anil to nil minimi,
trittnn mid legislative officers of
the state, mid to nil citucux nf the
Commonwealth who nre interested in
equal and uniform taxation, has been
puhlirthcd generally in the news
INipcrs nnd contains valuable infor.
mnt urn nnd important miggcstions.
"lie w-ns prevnt nt tho meetings
of the Hoard of Valuation nnd As
scsamrnt. which occupied nhont fue
mon t lii unci muxt be well-informed
on the MibjpclH to which he refcrn.
"The Ilonrd of Vulunlioti nnd As.
.Mossment. 1'onsinting of Ilenrv M.
Ilosworth'i. State Auditor, Thomas
S. lthen. State Treasurer, nnd I'. V.
Crecellus. Secretary of Stnle, did
their work well nnd faithfully.
"All persons who have made pro.
per imestigntion know that roriMir
ntions in Kentucky have not been
pining their juot proportion of th,.
tnxes, nnd llirre linn Iteen unjust
and biinlensoM'e liixnliou iiimiii tho
lHople ns compared with what has
been requirel to be paid by the large
corporations f our htnte.
"I n m opposed to disnrimtnnltor,
aud lielime that taxation h!ioiiII Ii.
uniform, nnd the conxtrntions nnd
the people nsscsed anil taxed jutly
end fa it I v.
"In mv mcsngo i, the Inst I.cgis.
liiliire, I lecommeiiiled the passage of
right imiNirtniit hills, nnd nil were
eiinrted into law- evept the public
utilities bill, which gne the Govcr,
nor mithoritv to npimint nn nsts
incut mid Miluntioii rommisMnii to
do what tlir xiting Hoard of Vain,
ulioii nnd Atwmeiit has done, but
as the liK-mUcr. of thut- board had
mil under former administrations
bi'eii in-live, I hud no knowledge that
the existing board would be iu-tie
until I wan i suted bv the mrtnlier-.
tluit thrv would do tJirir duty nnd
be ju-t nnd fair, nuil the public tit il
'ties bill was not wiMil.
"The rxistmg Hoard of Valiiiiliuti
and Assessment based their 1112 us.
essuielit on cMilcllre of the allies
plated before Ibem at great length,
and 1 inn Mire tlicv lime im-sputed
ulint tliev Miee. utter careful ex
amination and i-oiiiuciii proof, are
just, and fair usei.smcnt(; and of
about four hundri-d coriHirnttous
iismwscI, only eight hute protested
in the courts.
Tliu eight Milts that Imxo 1m-ii
'roiigbt against the Statu mnv bo
conlisii-,1 through tho Federal and
late courts, mid me of great im
portance to the people und the State
treasury. They im.dvu for the Male
about four hundred thousand dollar
unnunllv. mid for the count and cit
laxiiisr diNivii-t- nL'iit right hundred
thousand dollar uunualb. or u to.
lal ot uboiit one iiiilli.ui two hundred
thousand dollars.
"iVheii the proem iidiiiiuislratio'i
mine into elfeet. less than one war
ngo. tli,' Stale's indebtedness wm
inori' than one million dollar. With
ls und fair taxation the debt 1 1
tho State would soon ho extinguish
d. und I regret that important ami
poueilul corporations uru resist
mg the iiitioii of tb,. Hoard of Valu.
lition mid Assessment and vndrntui
inir to iwrpetiuilu taxation which
their own udiuissioiiH show to . mi.
JUst mill llllt'qual.
"Jf llie coiiHirutions which lmo
instituted sun, pt.iMst in their ef.
forts, the State of Kentucky nnd the
cause of the tuwier tdiould b
defended in the court h by counsel m
uu-rv way well-equipped, mid by nil
! "tt'-mc;- tl.l inr .. m-eded i
meet mid cope with the iniiiiv able
uttonu.ys who instituted the miiU.
"I hue rifi'i't confidence hi thu
Slate's interests ( Attorney Gen
erul Onriiell and hjrt three assistunts
nnd iiNo in (the ulnV mid well-equipped
attorney, .Mr. Itich. who, by re
quest r , Aitoniey General, in
"ruing. 1 Ji,iu. employed; but I will
be pleased to appoint another attor
ney, or two iitbeiH. if the Attorney
General, in wiiting. should itsk me
to d so, s ud(.r the Inw, I cannot
employ counsel to represent the
state without his request.
"Subsection fi of sections 112-15
(m tide o, ,,.,ge 218) of the Kentucky
Statutes oroiidc:
The Attorney General and his As.
Mstuiits shall attend to nil litigation
mill business in or out of the stiite,
inquired of him or them under this
net, or other existing law or laws
heieinufter enacted, and ulso any litf
ulion or business that unv Stule of
ficer may have in connection with or
giottiug out of his official duty, and
no State officer, board of trustees
or the heiid of any dpnrtnient or in
dilution of the State shall have nu
thoritv to employe or to be repre.
seated by any other counsel or ut
toiney ut law, unless an emergcucv
nrUe. which, in the opinion of the
Attorney Generul, requires tho eui
ployment of other counol. in order
to prniierly protect the interest of
the Commonwealth, which event
the Attorney General shall, in writ
ing setting forth reasons for such
(Continued on Next Page.)
f',

xml | txt