\ ' • W39 il
f'SRARV
u s \
W* »"
REPORT OF THE
- jexAS
STATE-WIDE TAX SURVEY
A Works Progress Administration Project
SPONSORED BY THE
STATE TAX BOARD
REPORT OF THE
STATE-WIDE TAX SURVEY
OF TEXAS
Sponsored by the
STATE TAX BOARD
Prepared by
A. IT. Holden
Technical Director
Official Project
65-66-5474
Works Progress Admini strati on
Division of Women's and Professional Projects
******
Austin, Texas
August 1938
REPORT OF THE STATE-WIDE TAX SURVEY
A WORKS PROGRESS ADMTNISTRATIOK PROJECT
SPONSORED BY THE TEXAS STATE TAX BOARD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . page 1
Organization Chart
Organization 8
Outline of Procedure
Office work 11
Plata 15
Field Work 16
Abstracts 19
History of Texas Public Lands
Land Grants SI
Surveying Methods 25
Statutory Provisions Governing Assessments 26
Present Tax Situation in Texas 29
Results Obtained 53
Analysis Tables (all districts) 40
Analysis Tables Summary 53
Conclusions and Recommendations 54
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
STATE-WIDE TAX SURVEY
NALLE BUILDING
AUSTIN, TEXAS
August 25, 1938
Honorable Albert K. Daniel
State Tax Commissioner
Austin, Texas
and
Honorable Harry P. Drought
State Administrator, W, P, A.
San Antonio, Texas
Gentlemen:
Attached hereto you will find the report of the State-Wide
Tax Survey, which was authorized by the Works Progress Administration
on November 25, 1935. You will recall that it was not our purpose to
publish a treatise on this work nor were there to be reports made for
general distribution, but the results of the Project were to be turned
over to each individual County where the work was performed. This
will advise you that all such detailed reports have thus been filed
and made available to the taxing authorities of each County, and the
subsequent reports attached hereto will give a resume of our activities
and a picture of the tax situation which confronted us at the beginning
and closing of this Project, together with a surmary of the most im¬
portant results obtained.
In the Counties in which the work was completed, there will
be found a complete report on each individual tract of land, outside
of an incorporated town or city, together with a complete recapitul¬
ation of all abstracts within said County. Considering the fact that
in the average sized County there are from 20,000 to 30,000 individual
ownerships, the reports filed with each County are necessarily very
voluminous, and thereforo, any attempt to go into detail in this report
would be highly impractical.
I trust that this procedure will meet with your approval.
Very truly yours,
lJ
A. W. Holden
AWH:ak Technical Director
State-Wide Tax Survey
STATE-'JIBE TAX SURVEY
A WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION PROJECT
SPONSORED BY THE STATE TAX BOARD
Acting under the authority vested in the State Tax Board
by Article 7102 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1923, which reeds
as follows:
"Said Tax Board, or any member thereof, or the
Comptroller under the direction of said Board or of
the Governor, shall, at least once in every year,
visit such counties of the State as said Board or
the Governor may direct for the purpose of investi¬
gating into and aiding in the enforcement of all
revenue laws of this State, and especially those con¬
cerning the rendition, assessment and collection of
taxes."
the Tax Commissioner made a preliminary survey of the ad valorem
tax situation in a number of representative counties. Those studies
together with a previous survey conducted through the agency of the
State Agricultural & Mechanical College covering approximately 120
counties revealed an urgent need for a comprehensive and complete in¬
ventory of all farm and ranch lands. Realizing the tremendous task
and the resulting expense of such an undertaking, the Commissioner
laid the matter before the State Administrator of the Works Progress
Administration, and through his cooperation a definite and specific
proposal was submitted and finally approved by both the State and
National Officials of the Works Progress Administration.
-1-
In order to convey some idea of the size and importance
of such a Survey, your attention is directed to the fact that this
proposal called for the largest Federal Appropriation of the Works
Progress Administration in the United States for any Project other
than a construction Project. The Presidential letter authorizing
this expenditure provided an appropriation of Federal Funds amount¬
ing to £2,562,852.
This proposal was designed to provide employment for a
total of 4,189 people, both men and women in the classification
known as the "white collar workers," but at no time were we able
to secure more than 50$ of that number- This fact together with
the reducing of working hours from 176 hours per month, the basis
used in our original proposal, to a maximum of 120 hours, and in
many instances to 80 hours per month, necessarily prolonged the life
of the Project.
One of tht, requirements of the Federal Government in approv¬
ing any project of any nature was that the Sponsor of such project
should contribute at least 25 per cent of the entire cost of such
project. In meeting this requirement, certain elements were taken
into consideration which if provided by a private concern or indivi¬
dual, would have required an actual expenditure on their part amounting
to £536,944. However, the State Government through the Tax Board
secured the cooperation of the various county governments and other
agencies so that the facilities which otherwise would have had to
be purchased were made available to this Survey without cost. For
example, in order for us to secure the best possible results it was
necessary that some person already employed by the county in the tax
assessing or the clerk's office give considerable tim^ in supervision
and instruction in the use of the records. This service was con¬
servatively estimated on the basis of one clerk whoso approximate
salary was $125 per month, giving one-half time to such supervision.
This item alone over the entire State amounted to $183,400. Another
item that was made available to this Survey which would have resulted
in a largo expenditure by any other agency than that of th© State Tax
Board was the use of existing map and plat books in 35 counties. The
cost of this service has been estimated conservatively to be $91,100.
In each county, office space ana equipment -such as desks, chairs, and
other conveniences incident to this type of work -were furnished by
county authorities or by chambers of commerce also without cost,
which service has been estimated to have saved the State $166,344.
We also have had made available to us the results of the previous
survey mentioned above, made through the Texas Agricultural & Mechanical
College effecting a saving of a further $81,100. In addition to these
-3-
capitalized contributions, the Tax Board through its regular appro¬
priation supplemented by the Governor's deficiency spent approximately
$49,000 in setting up a State supervisory staff which was required by
the Federal Authorities. This staff is housed in offices adjoining
the Tax Board and the office equipment, rental, and all office expense-
such as telephone, telegraph, etc. -were paid for out of Federal Funds,
leaving only the actual salaries and travel expense of the supervisory
staff to be paid out of the State Funds. The foregoing amounts together
made up the total Sponsor's contribution of $570,944.
The project was approved to operate in 235 of the 254 counties
of the State but because of unavailability of suitable labor on the cer¬
tified rolls it was found impossible to open the project in 27 of those
counties. In a number of other counties it was not possible to complete
every phase of the work for the same reason. In some counties only the
field work and some phases of office work could be done because of the
lack of certified typists and other qualified professional workers.
Other conditions which affected the length of time consumed in
the survey and the amount of money spent were
1. It was anticipated that it would require 4200 workers one
year to complete the work, and on the basis of information
given at the time the application was submitted it was expected
that this number would be available. Actually not more than
-4-
half of that number could be assigned at any one time.
2. In July, 1936 the basis of pay for the Works Progress
Administration workers was changed from the "security wage",
with 140 hours of work monthly, to the "prevailing wage
scale", under which in many counties the allowable hours were
cut almost in half.
3. In most cases standard procedures for similar projects
have been established and can be followed with only slight
changes to meet varying conditions in the several states.
Texas, because of its peculiar tax structure and tax history,
presented an entirely different problem and local problems
had to be met and dealt with individually, due to widely dif¬
fering conditions prevailing over the State. For example, a
large part of the eastern half of the State is mode up of
original Spanish grants which through long years have been
divided and subdivided into every conceivable size and shape,
resulting in a most unusual and difficult task. The Panhandle
section, which was more recently surveyed, was found to have
been sectionized with land lines and section lines regular and
in most cases uniform. The extreme West and the extreme South
bordering on the Rio Grande River revealed a great area of
-5-
land designated as "Parciones," a method of land measurements
and subdivisions peculiar to the Mexican government. The
transfer of title on these "Parciones" or parcels of land were
rarely recorded and were handed down from generation to genera¬
tion in one family, with no legal records available. In great
areas of Northeast, Central, and Northcentral, Texas the dis¬
covery of oil brought on a tremendous activity in land leasing
*
and even the sale and subdivision of land into small, irregular
tracts. These conditions, varying so widely in different sec¬
tions of the State, presented problems which were peculiar to
each locality and all had to be worked out individually and
separately.
These factors, which of necessity had to be met and coped with,
hindered to some extent the orderly progression of the project, and af¬
fected materially the time element in doing the work.
In spite of the foregoing drawbacks, and others which we re
more or loss serious, the statewide tax survey has in every county in
which it has operated, left a valuable contribution, and has succeeded
in its primary objectives. In addition it has disclosed to date 12,472
discrepancies in the Land Office records (which discrepancies have been
corrected by the Land Office) as well as effecting the outright cancel¬
lation of 1769 abstracts involving nearly 1,000,000 acres of land (see
pages 34 - 39 of this report).
-6-
ORGAN 1 Z A T 1 ON CHART
STATE-WIDE SURVEY OF F_A R M & _ R>JJ_C H L A_ N_D S
(administrative) (tec hn f C A l)
-7-
ORGANI ZATION
The preceding organization chart portrays graphically the
relationship of the administrative and technical divisions of project
operation, setting forth in order of functional procedure the related
responsibilities of each department in prosecuting project operation.
It can readily be seen that the project operation of the
"State-Wide Survey of Farm and Ranch Lands" was governed by two distinc
governmental organizations. The responsibility of assuring an efficien'
and well planned mode of technical procedure was that of the Sponsor,
the state Tax Board. The responsibility of administration, involving
the procurement of personnel, matters of administrative policy, estab¬
lishment of wages and work hours, etc., was that' of the Works Progress
Administ ration.
For the purpose of carrying out the obligations of the Sponsor
and to provide adequate technical direction in the operation of the
project, the Sponsor appointed as its representative a Technical
Director. The Technical Director, in addition to exercising the duties
implied by title, was required to effect coordination of technical
responsibility with the administrative function of the Works Progress
Administration through the Division of Women's and Professional Projects
the results of such coordination of effort being a well correlated
work program.
-8-
Due to the scope of the project, particularly with respect
to the area of coverage involved, it was necessary to appoint a State
Supervisor. The State Supervisor represented the Division of Women's
and Professional Projects on matters of administration, and the Technical
Director on matters of technique. The State Supervisor was responsible
to each of these offices, making his responsibility dual in nature.
The limitation of the scope of the project, as set forth
in the project proposal, prohibited the correction of any existing
errors or omissions and interpretation of data gathered. As a means
of accomplishing this phase of work, the General Land Office of the
State of Texas made available a person in the capacity of Chief Abstractor
The Chief Abstractor was responsible to the Technical Director, and,
in addition to the aforementioned duties, furnished information having
reference to the abstracting methods and procedure to the district
projects directly as well as through the Technical Director's office.
The technical activities of the State Supervisor and Chief Abstractor
required close coordination between the two offices.
The State Statistical Coordinator was a part of the Division
of Women's and Professional Projects, and was directly responsible admin¬
istratively to that division. The function of that position was to
provide the Division of Women's and Professional Projects information on
the technical conditions of the several district survey projects as well
-9-
as the State project as a whole, through careful examination of the
fundamental technique employed on surveys of this type. The technical
responsibility of the state Coordinator to the Coordinating Committee
is to advise of project status and any other information the Committee
may deem desirable. This further emphasized the need for maintaining
cooperation between the technical and administrative offices.
The district WA office performs the same function of adminis¬
tration for district project units as the State WPA division; that is,
administrative policy emanated from the State office and flowed to the
project units through the district office. In the same manner, the
district survey project was governed on technical procedure by such
instructions and regulations as were established by the Technical Di¬
rector. (It was the duty of the State Supervisor to maintain careful
check of both administrative and technical operations and determine
if such policies were being enforced.)
A further division of the district survey project was the
county unit. Generally each county unit had a supervisor. However,
in some instances two or more counties were placed under the super¬
vision of one individual, designated as Area Supervisor. These units
were responsible to the district project siipervisor for general in¬
struction on procedure and policy affecting the program, since they
were the basis of actual project operation.
-10-
GENERAL OUTLINE OF PROCEDURE IN
GATHERING THE BASIC INFORMATION
We believe a better picture can be given of this phase
of the work by quoting directly from the "Manual of Instructions"
which was furnished to all the supervisory staff. Reference is fre¬
quently made in this quotation to Form 730-A. This was the form
prepared on which to tabulate the information secured.
A. Office Work
"1. The fact that the sources of information for the
office work are the records of the Tax Assessor & Collector and the
County Clerk make this portion of the work no less difficult. The
following procedure is suggested in obtaining the information called
for by this part of the Form.
"2. Starting with Abstract No. 1 as shown by the Assessor's
abstract book, work on the abstracts in numerical order, obtain such
related information as number of acres in survey, name of original
grantee, name of patentee, name of survey, abstract number, certificate
number, block number and section number from the Assessor's abstract
book and the State Land Office abstract records.
"3. The Assessor's abstract book, if current and accurate,
will give a sound lead as to the owners of the tracts of land within
the particular abstract under consideration. It will also show the
-11-
acreage rendered by or assessed against the various persons, corporations,
etc. The Tax Collector's rolls, the deed records, the probate records,
and the lien records will give such related information as residence of
owner ana number of acres owned; road, school, and special district
numbers; lien holders, if any, with addresses; rendition record; and
volume and page of deed record. All of this information as a general
rule is ascertainable from these ana other records in the County Court
House in the particular county where the Tax Survey is being conduct¬
ed. Most of this information, such as owner, residence of owner,
liens, amount of acreage, etc., can and should be checked by the field
men when they go into the field.
"4. This part of the Form -that is, the office work,
should constitute a correct reflection of the records in the County
Court House. Accuracy should be emphasized. The records, unless
obviously wrong, should speak for themselves. Substantiating evidence
however, where possible, should be obtained in the field.
"5. Suggestions and assistance should be solicited from
the Tax Assessor & Collector, the County Clerk, the County Judge and
Commissioners' Court, the District Clerk, and any other public official
in a position to render help. This should be done, however, by the
County Project Manager or the District Supervisor of the Tax Survey.
It should be clearly understood in conjunction with this work that it
-12-
is not the intent or purpose to usurp the functions or statutory duty
of the Tax Assessor & Collector, or any other county official. It
should be borne in mind that the main intent of this work is to pro¬
vide factual data with which to assist the Tax Assessor & Collector
and the Commissioners' Court in spreading the tax burden equally among
the property owners of their county. The county officials will be
free to use or not to use the information as they see fit, but it
should be the purpose of each worker on the Tax Survey to promote
good will between the Survey and the county officials, and to do
everything in his power to make the Tax Survey work accurate and
dependable.
B. Plats
"1. On the front of Form 730-A in the upper left hand
corner, it will be observed that there is a space containing 16
square inches which is intersected by lines running at right angles
to each other and forming 1 inch squares. This space is provided
so that plats may be drawn of the particular tract of land owned by
the person, corporation, etc., indicated on the line "Owner, Jan. 1,
1936." The lines in the space are for aiding the person drawing
the plat in fixing distances and directions. Before the plat is
commenced the appropriate scale should be determined and indicated
in the space provided just above the plat section. Ordinarily the
scale should be 1 inch equals so many miles or varas. Whether the
-13-
inch equals miles or varas should be indicated by striking out which¬
ever is not applicable. The scale should be so adjusted that the plat
when drawn will neither look too small in proportion to the space
provided nor so large that it over-runs the boundaries of the space.
"2. A plat of each individual tract of land should be
drawn on the Form 730-A. The following method is deemed the most
efficient and accurate in drawing the said plats. Assign one or
more persons as conditions nav warrant to the copying of field notes
of the tract of land under consideration from the deed record itself.•
Copy the field notes on a blank sheet of scratch paper or on the
margin of Form 730-A. These field notes should then be routed to
the person or persons assigned to the drawing of plats. The plat
should then be drawn. These will be work plats for use by field men.
"3. In the event the county has a fairly recent ownership
map, it should be referred to for checking purposes. Do not, however,
accept these county ownership maps as necessarily authentic. It must
be remembered that if it is to be assumed that the county records are
perfect then there is no necessity for a Tax Survey.
"4. The top of the plat should always represent North,
but if the plat is so drawn that the top is not North, then a direction¬
al arrow should be placed adjacent to the plat to indicate North in
relation to the plat.
"5. After individual plats have been drawn for each tract,
a plat should then be drawn of the entire abstract on a separate blank
-14-
sheet of paper- Information for the drawing of the plat of the
abstract can be obtained from the field notes of the abstract or
from the State Land Office County Map. The individual ownerships
of plats should then be placed inside of the plat which has been
drawn of the abstract in the same manner in which a jigsaw puzzle
would be completed. No effort should be made to establish ownership
lines, but all drawings should be approximations. The principal pur¬
pose of showing the tracts on a plat of the abstract is to determine
if there is a definite area within the survey to which no ownership
is attached and to indicate relative location of individual owner¬
ships. If it is found that there is a definite area within the plat
of the abstract to which no ownership can be attached, then an attempt
should be made to establish ownership.
"6. The field men should check the plats for accuracy as
to location within the abstract, also as to shape and adjacent land¬
owners, and at this time the names of the adjacent landowners should
be shown on the individual plats. Location of rivers, creeks, roads,
railroads, etc. should be shown in relation to the tract of land.
Roads and highways should be designated as to kind by use of colored
pencil as indicated on the Form or by making proper note on the margin.
"7. After Form 7J30-A is typed in final completion, the
plat should be drawn in ink in the square provided on both the original
and the duplicate of the Form, and all information should be shown
-15-
as indicated herein.
"8. Caution should be exercised in all matters pertaining
to the drawing of plats so that the Tax Survey will not be put in a
position of delineating property lines. Ir; other words, it should be
understood that all plats and drawings are only approximations and
are not to be construed as a setting up of ownership lines.
C. Field Work
"1. The field work, as ir> denoted by its name, pertains
to that part of the infoimation for Form 730-A which will be obtain¬
ed not only figuratively, but literally in the field. Since it would
be practically impossible for a field worker to personally check the
number of acres in cleared or uncleared land, or to determine the
exact number of acres in cultivation, etc. himself, he will there¬
fore of necessity have to depend to a great extent upon the owner
or tenant occupying the property for such inforraation. Nevertheless,
it is necessary and absolutely required that the data called for by
this part of the Form be obtained where the property is located.
Only when the conditions are such that the interview or inspection
on the location is impossible will secondary data be acceptable,
and special attention to the fact that the data is secondary should
be noted on the Form 730-A under General Remarks. The field worker
will interview the landowner if available, and if he is not available,
-16-
then the tenant. In the course of the interview the field worker
should check the office work for accuracy. The correctness of the
landowner's or tenant's statements should be determinable by the
field worker's observations on the property.
"2. The willingness with which a landowner or tenant
will give information or permit access to his property will ordinarily
depend upon the method of approach used by the field worker. In this
regard, one outstanding fact should never be forgotten; and that is,
the Tax Survey has no legal right to go upon any land without the
permission of the landowner, or his duly authorized agent. This
simply means that all of the information obtained from the landowner
or tenant is voluntary and is a matter of courtesy on his part, and
he should understand that this is true. The impression should not
be left at any time that he is compelled to give information.
"3. The field worker should present himself to the land¬
owner or tenant, introduce himself, and explain what he is doing.
In this connection, it is deemed advisable to use the proper name of
this Survey, to-wit: Survey of Farm and Ranch Lands in Texas. It
will be observed that there is nothing in the name of the project
which pertains to taxation. Avoid the word "taxes" in your interview.
If a question is raised to the effect that it is for tax purposes,
point out that only about one-fifteenth of the Form is devoted to tax
-17-
matter and that the data could be used for various purposes, such as
soil conservation, reforestation, etc.
"4. The success of the field worker will largely depend
on these qualifications: first, diplomacy; second, common sense;
third, accurate observation; and fourth, accurate notation of inform¬
ation obtained.
"5. The work in the field should be so organized that the
abstracts nearest the county seat will be completed first, and the
field work should thereafter be developed in ever widening circles
with the county seat as the center. This will enable the field crews
to keep in close contact with the project foreman at the outset of
the field work, and many practical problems can be quickly solved
without too great a delay or expense. This procedure will also assure
a systematic and logical development of the work.
"6. Field crews should consist of two or three members, in¬
cluding the person driving the car- One of the field crew, not neces¬
sarily the driver, should be designated field crew foreman. He will
be responsible for the orderly procedure of the field work in the
section assigned his crew. Inhere work is being done in a thinly set¬
tled section two members should be sufficient, but where the field
work is in a thickly settled section, three members should be used.
The number of field workers per crew should conform to this standard
-18-
except where peculiar circumstances require otherwise.
"7. No worker will be required to walk any great distance
to reach his objective; that is, the residence of the owner or tenant,
but back-tracking or unnecessary circuitous travel should be eliminated
insofar as possible. When the survey or section is reached where
field work is to be done, a logical routing should be planned by the
worker in charge.
D. Abstracts
"In 1878 the General Land Office of the State of Texas
compiled into two volumes the then existing abstracts of the State.
The volumes were set up alphabetically by county and the abstracts
within a given county listed in alphabetical order and assigned in
numerical sequence an abstract number. Each year since that time
the General Land Office has supplemented the two original volumes
with an additional volume listing additional abstracts and arranged
in the same manner such corrections as were found necessary to be
made to abstracts listed in former volumes.
"It can be seen from the foregoing that a single abstract
with a number of corrections would necessarily appear in several
different volumes. Therefore, in order to locate a single abstract
and all corrections one would have to carefully examine the entire
58 volumes now in use.
"In order to determine the correct acreage shown in the State
Abstract Volumes (1-58) for the purpose of comparison with the County-
Abstract Records, it is necessary to compile the entries of these
volumes into Abstract Sheets by county. This will accomplish the
consolidation of all abstracts and corrections into one county volume,
in numerical order and eliminate having to examine each of the 58
State Abstract Volumes for all information pertaining to a single
abstract as at present. It can readily be seen that this procedure
will bring to light many existing discrepancies in the State Abstract
Volumes and identify many tracts (or abstracts) heretofore unassessed
by the counties.
"In setting up this feature of the work it is necessary
to begin with Volume 1 of the General Land Office Abstract Volumes
and list each abstract in numerical order, devoting one line of the
Abstract Sheet to a single abstract and all corrections thereon.
Continue this process until all abstracts within a given county appear¬
ing in all 58 volumes have been listed."
-20-
HISTORY OF TEXAS PUBLIC LANDS
LAND GRANTS
Texas came into the Union after having been an in¬
dependent Nation for ten years, with its own laws and customs.
Before securing its independence it was a state of the Republic
of Mexico, and prior to that, a Spanish province.
Hence a number of laws and customs of the Republic of
Texas were inherited from Spain and Mexico, including the system
of land measurements (the vara being the unit of measurement.)
Texas retained the title to all its public lands on
joining the Union, and in 1850 sold to the United States part of
what is now included in the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Okla¬
homa, Kansas, and Wyoming for Twelve Million Seven Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($12,750,000). Lands were granted to colonists
as awards for various services and such grants we re often large
in area. For instance, for services rendered during the Revolu¬
tion, each head of a family who had settled in Texas prior to
January 1, 1837, received a certificate for one league and labor
of land (4605 acres) - this applied to widows who were heads of
families as well, and each single man was given one-third of a
-21-
league (1476 acres.) This, of course, did not apply to those
who had already received their full quota under the Mexican law.
By a later Act of Congress the single men were granted the remain¬
ing two-thirds league and labor (3129 acres) provided they married
before December 14, 1838. These grants were known as "augmentation
certificates," and all grants other than these were known as "head-
rights."
The Republic, having no money to pay its soldiers paid
them in land. Certificates were issued for 1920 acres, the same
being known as "Bounty Warrants." Also, an additional donation, or
soldiers' bonus, of 640 acres was granted to each soldier who actual¬
ly fought in the Revolution, or their heirs.
The Republic found it impossible to raise money by
taxation, so in addition to applying for a loan in the United States,
it was necessary to sell about 700,000 acres of land for which script
was issued to be sold at not less than 50 cents per acre. In order
to secure free public schools, President Lamar and his Congress
passed Acts granting to each county four leagues of land. The
money received from the sale of these lands was placed in a Permanent
School Fund of the county. Additional grants were made to found a
State University, and also to support Eleemosynary Institutions. A
-22-
large amount of land script was sold, outright by the State and
this money was placed in the State School Fund. The granting of
3,100,000 acres of land in West Texas in payment for the State
Capitol is well known.
To encourage railroad building in the State, the Legis¬
lature gave to the railroad companies 16 sections of land for each
mile of road built. There was one peculiar and ingenuous feature
to this. It was provided that for each 640 acre certificate issued,
the railroad should, at its own expense, survey out on the ground
two sections, and return the field notes of same to the General
Land Office. By this means, the State managed to get the most of
its school lands surveyed free of cost. The railroad lands were
usually surveyed in large blocks and numbered consecutively, and
the alternate sections with odd numbers were patented to the rail¬
roads. This accounts for the checkerboard appearance rioted on the
maps of many of the western counties.
Each tract of land in the State is known by the name of
the person or company to whom it was originally granted, which ex¬
plains the various names found on the county maps. All of these
grants were made in the form of certificates, which could be located
on otherwise unappropriated public land. Therefore, when the owner
desired to have his certificate located, he simply went to a county
-23-
surveyor in any part of the State, and selected a good piece of
vacant land. His selection was not confined to any geometric pro-
portion, and, therefore, an irregular and difficult tract was
established. This, together with the inheritance from the Mexican
days, and endeavering to take the best land first, has added im¬
measurably to the difficulty of establishing present day ownerships.
In Texas we have a system of surveying which establishes
each survey separate and complete; that is, it is made on the ground
and lines and corners are narked. The markings of corners are some¬
times difficult to recognize, especially in the timbered portion
of the State. The field notes must close, all bearings and distances
must be given, and the calls must be such that the lines may be
readily retraced by other surveyors. Has, together with our system
of land measurements which was handed down from the Spanish times,
has added additional problems in establishing ownerships.
The measurement unit is called a "vara." The word
"vara" in Spanish means "yard," and is simply the Spanish yard.
However, the value of a Spanish yard varied and was not really defin¬
ed until the 98th United States Supreme Court decided in 1879 that
33-1/3 inches be recognized as the Vara in Texas.
-24-
SURVEYING METHODS
The location of Spanish grants and land certificates was
extremely crude. The surveys consisted of establishing corners by
markers, and a copy of the field notes describing such markers to¬
gether with the dimensions and connections with adjoining tracts
were recorded at the General Land Office at Austin. If the Land
Office found that the title was in the party claiming the land, a
patent was issued to him on payment of proper fees. Numerous cases
of overlapping of land titles occurred, principally in the land set¬
tled and claimed by reason of residence prior to the union of the
State of Texas with the United States in 1845.
Without doubt the crude surveying methods used in the early
days, were responsible for over lapping of land titles and vacancies.
A great many present day records in the State General Land Office
are based on surveys made by a cowboy riding his pony and smoking
cigarettes. Ee would calculate the distance between two points by
the number of cigarettes smoked or another favorite method was to tie
a rag on a spoke of a wagon wheel and count the revolutions between
two given points. It takes no argument to establish that with
such primitive methods many conflicts were inevitable. For years the
General Land Office has been engaged with County Surveyors in
correcting such conflicts especially where County lines were effected.
There is still much to do in correcting records of individual ownerships
within the counties.
-25-
STATUTORY PROVISIONS GOVERNING ASSESSMENTS
FOR TAXATION IN TEXAS
Article 7164 of the Texas Statutes as revised in 1925
reads in part as follows:
"Persons listing or rendering real estate
shall make a statement, duly signed and under oath,
which shall truly and distinctly set forth:
"1. The name of the owner, abstract number,
number of survey, the number of the certificate,
the name of the original grantee, the number of
acres, AND THE TRUE AND FULL VALUE THEREOF.
"2. The number of the lot and block AND THE
TRUE AND FULL VALUE THEREOF, together with the
name of the town or city.
"Vshen the name of the original grantee or ab¬
stract number, or number of certificate, or number
of survey is unknown, say 'unknown' and give such
description so that land or lot can be identified
AND THE TRUE AND FULL VALUE THEREOF can be deter¬
mined. (Id. )"
It can be readily seen from the foregoing quotation that
the laws of the State of Texas provide for what is known as the vol¬
untary rendition of taxes. The mere fact that one taxpayer under-
renders this property while an adjoining taxpayer may render his land
at a true and correct value does not constitute discrimination in
assessment. This statement is based on the case of Brundrett vs.
\
Lucas, reported 'in 194 S. J. 613 in a decision handed doxwi by the
Court of Civil Appeals.
Article 7149 defines certain terms used in the statutes
governing taxation. From this Article the following is a quotation:
-26-
"Value -the terra, 'true and full value,'
wherever used shall be held to mean the fair mar¬
ket value, in cash, at the place where the property
to which the term is applied shall be at the time
of assessment, being the price which can be ob¬
tained therefor at private sale, and not at forced
or auction sale."
Briefly summarizing the above statutes we find that the
responsibility of assessing property in Texas lies with the taxpayer
himself, and that he is required to make a full rendition of all
properties based on the actual values of such properties. A ques¬
tionnaire sent out to the various tax assessor-collectors over the
entire State of Texas revealed that properties were being rendered
for taxation at various percentages of their true market value,
ranging from 25 per cent to 80 per cent, and in four cases the asses¬
sors reported that property in their counties was rendered at 100 per
cent of its true market value. Using these questionnaires as a
basis, we have determined that all property of whatsoever nature
and kind all over the state is now being assessed at an average of
48.942 per cent of its true value. This condition is one that has
confronted the State yearly practically as far back as tax records
are available. The only explanation we have for such a condition is
that the taxing authorities are elected to their positions through
the suffrage of the taxpayer, which situation also applies to all
law enforcement agencies, and the human element entering into the
subject of taxation has apparently dominated the tax problems of this
-27-
State.
Although all renditions are subject to review by each
County Board of Equalization, which is composed of members of the
Commissioners' Courts, the same argument with reference to the human
element would also apply. We therefore propose to show that the
establishment of a basis for fair and equitable assessment would in
a large degree combat such a situation, by supplying to each tax
assessor and each Board of Equalization an authoritative guide for
setting values which would largely relieve these individuals of per¬
sonal responsibility.
-28'
present tax situation in tk:as
It has been conservatively estimated that there are in
Texas approximately several million acres of land that have never
been taxed. This is a statement made after a thorough investigation
and as a result of years of study by commercial companies including
aerial photography firms which have brought to light sufficient
evidence to support it. Along with the untaxed acreage there has
been discovered, largely through this Survey, an almost unbelievable
value in peimanent improvements which has also escaped taxation.
We find that it is almost a universal custom among the taxing of¬
ficials to arbitrarily divide a county in three or four sections and
for no apparent reason to designate the southeast portion of said
county to be rendered at $10 per acre, the northeast portion at $15
per acre, the northwest portion at possibly $8 per acre, and the
southwest portion at perhaps $20 per acre. This is the result of
an agreement entered into by members of the Board of Equalization,
each of whom represents a portion of that county on the Board. These
arbitrary figures are set without any regard whatsoever to permanent
improvements of any individual tract of land within a given area,
without regard to productivity of any particular tract, without tak¬
ing into consideration soil classifications or soil usages, proximity
-29-
to markets, accessibility to modern conveniences -such as gas,
electricity, etc. They are simply arbitrary figures which control
the assessment throughout the county. As one example of the injustice
of such a system, the Tax Survey has discovered that in a certain
West Texas county, in that portion of which the tax values were
arbitrarily fixed at $10 per acre, there was one tract containing
640 acres owned by two taxpayers. One nan owned 600 acres with no
improvements other than a barbed wire fence which surrounded the
tract, but on the basis of the above mentioned agreement, his value
was set at $6,000 for an unimproved pasture. The remainder of this
section, 40 acres, was also valued at $10 per acre for tax purposes,
making a total valuation of $400, but on this 40 acres there were,
and had been for several years, twenty six-room brick cottages, the
values of which were not added to the tax rendition.
The annual report of the State Comptroller of Public Ac¬
counts, which report shows a recompilation of all the county tax
assessors' rolls, reveals this startling fact - that in addition to
the vast number of acres which have not appeared on any tax rolls, as
pointed out in the preceding paragraph, in the 1935 report, when this
Project was started, there showed to be 18,776,936 acres of land that
were placed on the tax rolls by the various county assessors at an
aggregate value of $175,120,007 xvhich showed ownership unknown. No.
-30-
argument is needed to show that land, the ownership of which is
unknown, would produce no revenue for the State and County. Taxes
accruing on such rendered property are uncollectible, and the in¬
clusion of such as an asset to the county and State creates a false
basis upon which State ana county budgets are made. This Survey has
reduced to a minimum, if not entirely eliminated, all such unknown
ownerships.
By reason of faulty survey records, laxity on the part of
oxvners in recording deeds and other instruments that affect the trans¬
fer of titles, there is in some sections of the State a large amount
of what is known as double renditions, wherein the same tract of land
is erroneously rendered in the name of two or more taxpayers. This
situation also tends to build up false assets, and has been largely
cured through this Survey.
As noted above, that part of the Comptroller's annual
report dealing with tax renditions is a summary of the several county
assessment rolls, and by comparing a few figures over a period of six
years, we have disclosed a very unusual, if not ludicrous situation,
an example of which follows: one county in Texas in the year 1929,
according to the above mentioned report, contained 714,276 acres; in
1930 it contained 715,444 acres; in 1931 it contained only 708,654
acres; in 1932 it contained 711,200 acres; in 1933 it contained 718,682
-31-
acres; and in 1954 the records show that this same county contained
a total of 2,055,456 acres. The total area of Texas as shown in
these reports is as follows:
1929 167,487,576 acres,
1950 167,492,777 acres,
1951 168,558,404 acres,
1932 167,089,785 acres,
1933 167,572,507 acres,
1934 170,340,813 acres,
making a gross variation for the entire state of 3,251,028 acres,
an area which is comparable to the size of the entire State of
Connecticut.
-32-
RE,SUITS OBTAINED
There were two primary objectives towards which the opera¬
tion of this Project was aimed. On the part of the Federal Govern¬
ment and the Y/orks Progress Administration their concern was the
gainful employment of certified workers in order to keep them off of the
direct relief rolls. To this end the total Federal expenditures, as
shown by the last financial report, amounted to $2,586,329.39. Your
attention is here directed to the amount stated previously, which
was granted by the Works Progress Administration and was somewhat
lower than the figure quoted immediately above. This is due to a
provision by which any project would be entitled to an increase
up to ten per cent in order to complete. Therefore the Federal
Government expended more than $200,000.00 over ana above the original
amount. According to the W.. P- A. policy, at least sixty per cent
of this amount of money was to be expended for labor, and our figures
show that during the life of this Project 6,469,325 man hours were
expended on this work alone. We can therefore very definitely say
that the prime objective of the Federal Government was met by the
employment of that many people. In addition to the employment by
the Federal Government, the State Tax Board, as sponsor, maintained
a personnel of from twelve to seventeen during the more than two
and one-half years of the actual operations, which would add
-33-
approximately 90,000 more man hours to the Project.
The prime objective from the sponsor's point of view was
threefold:
(1) Discovery of untaxed land.
(2) The elimination of "unknown" and "double" renditions.
(3) The establishment of a basis for fair and equitable
valuation.
Briefly discussing these points, we will call your atten¬
tion to the tables immediately following this section of the report,
which will require some explanation. First of all, it is necessary
to bear in mind that this Project covered only fain, and ranch land
situated outside of incorporated limits of cities and towns.
Secondly, that due to the utter lack of suitable labor the Project
was never started in forty-six counties. Therefore, no information
of any kind will be available from these counties. In fifty-five
other counties the entire program was not complete and summaries
of the work done were not made. However, based on that portion of
the work which was completed within these counties, you will find a
very conservative estimate of the results on the tables which follow.
The figures shown on the subsequent tables are figures
which applied as of January 1, 1937. It should be stated here that
during the progress of the work, between its inception in November,
-34-
1935 and up to the end of December, 1936, untaxed acreage, when and
as discovered, was immediately placed on the then current tax rolls
and does not appear in the totals shown by this report. We have
conservatively estimated that 400,000 acres were thus treated and
should be added to the total untaxed acreage shown by this report.
In the same manner the subject of unknown ownership was
treated. That is to say, when various tracts of land were identi¬
fied, this information was immediately passed on to the local taxing
authorities and corrections made on the local records; and while
we do not have a compilation of figures to cover this point, we
have every reason to believe that fully seventy-five per cent of
the heretofore unknown owners within the counties in which the
Tax Survey operated have been eliminated.
As to the third objective, that of establishing a basis
for fair and equitable valuation, we can only say here that each
separate tract of land in each county where the Project operated
was treated individually whether its size was one acre or less or
whether it contained a vast area running into the thousands of
acres, and on each of these individual tracts we have a detailed
report first identifying such tract by its legal description,
ownership, lien holders, if any, even to the deed record whereon
is shown its purchase. Following this identification the character
-35-
of soil is shown, giving the approximate acres of each type and
designating whether or not such acreage is cleared or uncleared.
Another section of this schedule is devoted to a report on the
uses to which this soil is put, showing the number of acres in
cultivation, in pasturage, wasteland, et cetera. Then further,
information of a more general nature was secured on each tract,
such as the distance from market, whether or not this tract was
served by a highway, a school bus, or utilities such as gas and
electricity; designating the major or money crop with its average
annual yield for the past five years and to what extent such tract
was subject to erosion or floods. Following this detailed informa¬
tion regarding the land itself, a report was made on all improve¬
ments thereon, giving the type of structure, its purpose, date of
its erection, and salient points of its construction, all of which
information has a very direct bearing on values.
These detailed reports have been filed with the county
assessors of each county and copies of the same have been retained
by the State Tax Commission. Since there are approximately
1,600,000 of these reports, it can be readily seen that the work
was indeed voluminous.
Under the general heading of RESULTS the work on the
Land Office abstract records should have a very prominent place,
-36-
even though this phase of the work was not contemplated when the
Project was set up and therefore can be construed as a by-product
of the Tax Survey. After the Project had been in operation for
several months, it became apparent that due to the great number of
errors discovered in the Land Office abstract records it was neces¬
sary to recompile such records and check their accuracy by the
records of the County Clerk and County Tax Assessor. To this end,
therefore, an additional group was organized which was known as
the Headquarters Project. A detail of their duties will be found
on pp. 19 and 20 of this report and which I will amplify as
follows:
All information pertaining to a single abstract, as it
appears in the 59 State abstract volumes, was compiled on Form 740.
At the time of this transcriptior, notes were made on all discrep¬
ancies appearing in the State abstract volumes. Each county Form
740 was then sent, with discrepancy notes made, to the Land Office
where these discrepancies were corrected by a check against all
existing Land Office records. With this done, Form 740 was then
sent to the county where comparative information was entered from
the county abstract records.
Upon receiving Form 740 back from the county, differences
in acreages as shown between the Land Office records and county
-37-
abstract records were checked against Land Office records and
adjustments made. This procedure frequently resulted in cancella¬
tion of the abstract in question.
In addition to the above outlined work the Headquarters
Project performed all of the calculations, typing, and proof read¬
ing and checking necessary to the correct compilation of this
abstract form.
In order to give a general picture of the results obtained
in this phase of the work, the following data is offered. Out of
the 254 counties in the State, entries of State abstract volumes
have been compiled on Form 740 for 250 counties. While compiling
these entries, 12,472 discrepancies in State abstract volumes were
discovered and corrected. This fact alone proves conclusively the
value of this compilation. Out of the 250 county forms 740 that
have been compiled, 191 have had county abstract record entries
made. On comparing the county abstract record data with State
abstract volumes data, 1769 abstract cancellations have been ef¬
fected. These cancellations involved a total of 873,505.15 acres.
Thirty-four of these cancellations will appear in State Abstract
Volume No. 60, and 1735 will appear in State Abstract Volume No. 61,
when published. Out of the 191 forms 740 on which county entries
have been made, 92 have been 100 per cent completed. The original
-38-
typed copies of these completed forms have been sent to the County-
Judge and Commissioners' Court of the respective counties. The
carbon copies of the typed forms and the pencil work sheets have
been filed with the Texas State Tax Board. All other county forms
740, regardless of the degree of completion have been filed with
the State Tax Board.
The newly elected Commissioner of the General Land Office,
under whose supervision this abstract work was carried on, has ex¬
pressed the desire to carry over into his administration the work
of the Tax Survey with reference to these abstracts and that all
uncompleted revision will be carried on in his office. The work
done thus far will be of inestimable value in correcting the
records of the General Land office.
-59-
DISTRICT NUMBER ONE
County
Angelina
Bowie
Camp
Franklin
Jasper
Marion
Morris
Newt on
Sabine
San Augustine
Shelby
Wood
Acreage
1937
Tax Rolls
533 356.16
561 806.10
127 224.86
185 244.41
599 310.71
240 090.21
153 154.80
577 461.24
326 824.91
28 9 087.37
489 253.67
415 362.22
Acreage
State-wide
Tax Survey
537 382.43
570 515.74
127 374.86
186 837.62
601 638.58
254 123.43
152 870.54
588 561.41
348 085.98
343 124.76
518 134.08
431 327.85
Unrendered
Acres
12 526.65
45 703.54
2 113.08
7 206.25
2 651.12
29 941.04
11 543.05
15 618.37
23 690.84
62 148.21
66 666.37
19 595.81
Double or
Over-rendered
Acres
8 500.38
36 993.90
1 963.08
5 613.04
323.25
15 907.82
11 827.31
4 518.20
2 429.77
8 110.82
37 785.96
3 630.18
DISTRICT TOTALS 4 498 176.66 4 659 977.28 299 404.33 137 603.71
The following counties in this district are not included in the
above figures for the reason that the work of the Tax Survey was closed
down before completion and authentic totals are not available. The
area of these counties totals 6,660,225.16 acres, which is 143$ of the
total area listed above. We therefore could expect, if the work were
completed, the same ratio of discrepancy as appears above to apply on
the uncompleted counties. On this basis we should add 428,148.19 acres
to the 299,404.33 acres, shown above as unrendered, to arrive at the
total unrendered acres for the entire district, which amounts to
727,552.52 acres of unrendered land. Using this same ratio for calcu¬
lating the double or over-rendered acres, we should add 196,773.30 to
the 137,603.71, making a total possible deduction of 334,377.01 acres.
This would mean a net gain in acreage to this district of 393,175.51.
Cass Red River
Cherokee Rusk
Gregg Smith
Harrison Titus
Nacogdoches Tyler
Panola Upshur
-40-
DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR
County
Collin
Cooke
Dallas
Delta
Denton
Fannin
Grayson
Hopkins
Hunt
Kaufman
Lamar
Rains
Rockwall
Van Zandt
Acreage
1937
Tax Rolls
561 959.35
569 387.60
572 011.75
175 632.38
601 471.54
568 851.25
616 691.99
498 450.84
550 768.50
508 742.40
584 887.03
156 584.06
94 268.63
494 391.45
Acreage
State-wide
Tax Survey
562 689.45
570 470.60
575 943.76
176 694.46
604 324.32
563 877.90
615 814.25
501 234.81
557 185.62
511 039.81
588 642.22
164 119.59
94 740.15
539 040.12
Unrendered
Acres
3 405.64
7 472.07
17 426.16
4 063.08
6 460.20
7 609.86
2 394.85
9 223.54
8 178.13
12 791.48
15 372.79
12 953.58
1 786.37
61 063.07
Double or
Over-rendered
Acres
2 675.54
6 389.07
13 494.15
3 001.00
3 607.42
12 583.21
3 272.59
6 439.57
1 761.01
10 494.07
11 617.60
5 418.05
1 314.85
16 414.40
DISTRICT TOTALS 6 554 098.77
6 625 817.06 170 200.82
98 482.53
All counties in this district were sufficiently completed to make
available authentic totals for each county. As shown above, the total
unrendered acres in this district is 170,200.82, with a possible de¬
duction of 98,482.53 double and over-rendered acres, leaving a net
gain of 71,718.29 acres.
-41-
DISTRICT NUMBER SIX
Acreage
Acreage
Double or
1937
State-wide
Unrendered
0ver-rendere<
County
Tax Rolls
Tax Survey
Acres
Acres
Austin
398 027.56
408 002.53
51
519.52
41 544.55
Colorado
605 755.88
605 381.19
11
660.88
12 035.57
Fort Bend
557 757.26
556 690.30
2
019.79
3 086.75
Galveston
149 998.68
246 032.12
96
712.94
679.50
Grimes
493 326.15
499 916.79
72
491.72
65 901.08
Hardin
578 446.03
576 558.81
5
757.38
7 644.60
Harris
1
134 075.96
1 125 004.22
3
906.84
12 978.58
Liberty
683 455.64
739 146.04
73
921.41
18 231.01
Matagorda
716 580.46
716 423.38
1
351.69
1 508.77
Montgomery
637 444.38
680 729.86
56
443.85
13 158.37
San Jacinto
380 980.37
387 506.25
14
539.44
8 013.56
Trinity
443 316.73
444 934.76
19
791.23
18 173.20
Walker
454 808.67
489 997.26
39
490.58
4 301.99
Waller
319 467.16
325 806.45
22
163.93
15 824.64
Washington
381 302.95
388 230.54
43
965.00
37 037.41
Wharton
694 385.90
694 828.85
456.76
13.81
DISTRICT TOTALS
8
629 129.78
8 885 189.35
516
192.96
260 133.39
The following counties in this district are not included in the above
figures for the reason that the work of the Tax Survey was closed down
before completion and authentic totals are not available. The area of
these counties totals 3,166,708.21 acres, which is 35$ of the area listed
above. We therefore could expect, if the work were completed, at least
as much discrepancy as appears above, so we can add 180,667.53 to
516,192.96, making a total unrendered acreage of 696,860.49, with a
possible deduction of 351,180.07 or a net gain for this district of
345,680.42 acres.
Brazoria Orange
Chambers Polk
Jefferson
-42-
DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN
County
Baylor
Callahan
Clay
Eastland
Foard
Hardeman
Mont ague
Palo Pinto
Parker
Shackleford
Stephens
Tarrant
Throckmorton
Wichita
Wilbarger
Wise
Young
Acreage
1937
Tax Rolls
566 067.78
561 398.66
691 898.87
578 230.69
448 723.85
434 991.12
587 706.19
615 018.15
556 730.81
579 052.66
574 080.08
564 677.74
569 408.04
378 361.56
451 318.80
580 062.46"
571 010.10
Acreage
State-wide
Tax Survey
565 977.82
562 652.08
691 756.69
579 639.74
448 550.35
435 810.22
587 428.66
614- 907.55
565 532.85
578 502.18
573 893.96
567 895.61
570 053.23
378 738.10
467 698.37
583 025.00
571 656.66
Unrendered
Acres
1 203.29
6 276.90
4 930.76
12 494.74
587.94
1 927.81
3 454.85
1 536.34
9 957.27
1 459.48
2 953.81
13 884.58
935.45
3 115.59
17 137.47
32 300.69
1 296.06
Double or
Over-rendered
Acres
1 293.25
5 023.48
5 572.94
5 085.69
761.44
1 108.71
3 732.38
1 646.94
1 155.23
2 009.96
3 139.93
10 666.71
290.26
2 739.35
757.90
29 338.15
649.50
DISTRICT TOTALS 9 302 737.56 9 343 219.07 115 453.03 74 971.52
The following counties in this district are not included in the above
figures for the reason that the work of the Tax Survey was closed down
before completion and authentic totals are not available. The area of
these counties totals 2, 298,831.90 acres or a little more than one-fourth
of the area listed above. We therefore could expect, if the work were
completed, at least as much discrepancy as appears above, so we can add
28,863.27 to 115,453.03, making a total unrendered acreage of 144,316.3
with a possible deduction of 93,714.4 acres or a net gain for this dis¬
trict of 50,601.9 acres.
Archer *Jack
Haskell Knox
*In the county indicated by the Tax Survey did not operate at all.
-43-
DISTRICT NUMBER EIGHT
County
Comanche
Ellis
Freestone
Hamilton
Henderson
Johnson
Lampasas
Limestone
McLennan
Madison
Mills
Navarro
Acreage
1937
Tax Rolls
555 890.39
600 265.34
486 232.52
522 673.20
396 723.50
463 556.53
446 862.80
591 496.24
666 270.88
293 170.30
468 131.35
683 057.30
Acreage
State-wide
Tax Survey
589 580.87
609 104.64
559 425.01
523 195.29
589 211.15
465 175.72
452 968.20
507 918.87
666 526.57
294 586.74
469 535.26
683 220.77
Unrendered
Acres
38 341.70
17 081.36
80 767.13
3 010.83
204 684.08
9 258.65
12 948.26
6 481.20
3 162.47
7 150.27
3 578.00
20 269.57
Double or
Over-rendered
Acres
4 651.22
8 242.06
7 574.64
2 488.74
12 196.43
7 639.46
6 842.86
10 058.57
2 906.78
5 733.83
2 174.09
20 106.10
DISTRICT TOTALS 6 174 330.35
6 490 449.09 406 733.52
90 614.78
The following counties in this district are not included in the above
figures for the reason that the work of the Tax Survey was closed down
before completion and authentic totals are not available. The area of
these counties totals 5,655,356.65 acres or 87$ of the area listed above.
We therefore could expect, if the work were completed, at least as much
discrepancy as appears above, so we can add 353,858.16 to 406,733.52,
making a total unrendered acreage of 760,591.68 with a possible deduction
of 169,449.64 acres or a net gain for this district of 591,142.04 acres.
Anderson Hill
*Bosque *Hood
Coryell Houston
Erath Leon
Falls *Somervell
*In the counties indicated by the Tax Survey did not operate at all.
44-
DISTRICT NUMBER NINE
County
Blanco
Brazos
Burleson
Caldwell
Fayette
Hays
Lee
Llano
Milam
Robertson
San Saba
Acreage
1937
Tax Rolls
445 940.03
363 015.64-
390 406.88
320 558.12
589 060.19
412 857.65
393 413.81
588 984.47
675 019.82
540 135.24
690 488.34
Acreage
St ate-wide
Tax Survey
447 146.31
371 087.57
399 725.05
331 447.45
594 121.48
412 898.72
398 006.27
586 426.73
633 069.71
540 302.77
687 102.27
Unrenderea
Acres
8 262.12
15 558.65
39 319.38
14 166.26
7 178.28
8 589.53
5 661.62
7 419.37
48 792.65
18 912.21
9 015.89
Double or
Over-rendered
Acres
7 055.84
7 486.72
30 001.21
3 276.93
2 116.99
8 548.46
1 069.16
9 977.11
90 742.76
18 744.68
12 401.96
DISTRICT TOTALS 5 409 880.19
5 401 334.33 182 875.96
191 421.82
The following counties in this district are not included in the above
figures for the reason that the work of the Tax Survey was closed down
before completion and authentic totals are not available. The area of
these counties totals 3,204,960.19 acres or about 60$ of the area listed
above. We therefore could expect, if the work were completed, at least
as much discrepancy as appears above, so we can add 109,725.58 to
182,875.96, making a total unrendered acreage of 292,601.54 with a pos¬
sible deduction of 306,274.91 acres, which will result in a loss of
13,673.37 acres to this district.
Bastrop Travis
Bell Williamson
Burnet
-45-
DISTRICT NUMBER TEN
Acreage
1937
Acreage Double or
State-wide Unrerxdered Over-rendered
County
Tax
Rolls
Tax Survey
Acres
Acres
Bandera
512
902.62
512
354.24
967.
63
1
516.01
Bee
556
315.27
555
983.24
17
350.
07
17
682.10
Bexar
768
131.21
772
757.33
7
487.
82
2
861.70
Calhoun
315
145.80
315
044.42
4
698.
42
4
799.80
Comal
351
260.22
351
481.73
753.
28
531.77
Gillespie
701
581.79
702
485.94
18
222.
51
17
318.36
Gonzales
669
407.28
665
176.18
2
850.
08
7
081.18
Guadalupe
498
675.67
498
745.10
9
013.
91
8
944.48
Karne s
475
111.88
474
177.32
1
698.
06
2
632.62
Victoria
476
125.95
476
238.2,2
425.
81
313.54
DISTRICT TOTALS 5 324
657.69
5 324
443.72
63
467.
59
63
681.56
The following counties in this district are not included in the above
figures for the reason that the work of the Tax Survey was closed down
before completion and authentic totals are not available. The area of
these counties totals 14,505,514.83 acres, which is almost three times the
area listed above. We therefore could expect, if the work were completed,
at least as much discrepancy as appears above, so we can add 190,402.77 to
63,467.59, making a total unrendered acreage of 253,870.36 with a possible
deduction of 254,726.24 acres, which will result in a loss of 855.88 acres
to this district.
Aransas
Atascosa
DeWitt
*Edwards
*Frio
Goliad
Jackson
Kendall
Kerr
*Kinney
*Luvaca
*Live Oak
*Medina
*McMullen
*Real
*Refugio
*San Patricio
*Uvalde
*Val Verde
*Wilson
*In the counties indicated by the Tax Survey did not operate at all,
-46-
DISTRICT NUMBER ELEVEN
*Brooks
Cameron
♦Dimmitt
*Duvai
Hidalgo
♦Jim Hogg
♦Jim Wells
♦Kenedy
♦Kleberg
♦La Salle
♦Maverick
Nueces
Starr
Webb
♦Willacy
♦gapata
♦gavalla
Since none of the counties listed above were completed, we are
applying the average per cent of delinquency over the State to the
area in this district, resulting as follows: 14,439,857.7 total
acreage with £.79yo unrendered, amounting to 402,872.03 acres. Then
applying the same per cent of double and over-rendered acreage
obtained over the rest of the State, vie find that 1.63$ comes under
this heading, making a possible deduction of 235,369.68 acres or a
net gain to this district of 167,502.35 acres.
♦in the counties indicated by "♦" the Tax Survey did not operate at
all.
-47
DISTRICT NUMBER SIXTEEN
County
Acreage
1937
Tax Rolls
Acreage
State-wide
Tax Survev
Unrendered
Double or
Over-rendered
A f> T"fi R
A r> c:
.Armstrong 582 173.40 583 480.50 5 077.85 3 770.75
Carson 569 051.44 570 309.53 11 283.02 10 024.93
Castro 507 037.04 507 080.37 471.79 428.46
Collingsworth 522 313.95 578 127.92 153 042.14 97 228.17
Dallam 942 878.90 9S4 655.59 31 £11.36 9 435.17
Deaf Smith 933 421.26 937 043.42 6 964.87 3 342.71
Donley 588 438.61 587 764.02 11 675.68 12 350.27
Gray 576 632.26 579 049.12 7 012.33 4 595.47
Hall 553 261.58 559 804.49 32 537.18 30 994.27
Hansford 584 492.70 584 224.19 3 789.84 4 058.35
Hartley 921 432.83 921 930.70 3 201.67 2 703.80
Hemphill 569 755.51 572 272.12 22 282.54 19 765.93
Hutchinson 577 496.14 574 106.34 5 842.07 9 231.87
Lipscomb 590 417.79 591 606.01 6 915.86 5 727.64
Moore 579 173.64 579 055.26 1 829.54 1 947.92
Ochiltree 584 566.45 584 994.81 3 969.93 3 541.57
Oldham 945 830.32 935 367.93 11 717.43 22 179.82
Potter 582 058.22 580 051.50 1 14-9.74 3 156.46
Randall 580 019.71 585 087.07 38 673.74 33 606.38
Roberts 483 196.73 483 052.52 5 015.85 5 160.06
Sherman 584 763.17 582 960.80 2 296.05 4 098.42
Swisher 576 602.42 570 809.96 12 515.44 18 307.90
Wheeler 552 843.94 564 533.77 72 139.06 60 449.23
DISTRICT TOTALS 14 492 858.01 14 577 367.94 450 615.48 366 105.55
-48
DISTRICT NUMBER SIXTEEN (Continued)
The following counties in this district are not included in
the figures on preceding page for the reason that the work of the
Tax Survey was closed down before completion and authentic totals
are not available. The area of these counties totals 1,561,733.52
acres, which is almost Ufa of the total area listed above. 1*4
therefore could expect, if the work were completed, at least as
much discrepancy as appears above, so we can add 49,567.70 to
450,615.40, making a total unrendured acreage of 500,183.18 with
a possible deduction of 402,716.10 acres or a net gain for this
district of 97,467.03 acres.
Briscoe
Childress
Parmer
-49
DISTRICT NUMBER SEVENTEEN
County
Cochran
Crosby
Dawson
Dickens
Fisher
Floyd
Garza
Hale
Hockley
Jones
Kent
Lubbock
Lynn
Motley
Scurry
Terry
Acreage
1937
Tax Rolls
482 950.88
577 833.08
574 768.63
567 351.01
571 332.84
633 931.4-6
555 104.99
637 652.99
517 037.47
589 642.79
567 279.13
572 994.13
563 868.01
629 726.45
573 724.15
565 520.64
Acreage
State-wide
Tax Survey
482 792.41
578 185.49
576 822.95
569 452.39
574 690.54
633 920.82
570 504.51
637 676.16
517 243.34
590 806.16
570 482.99
573 021.13
565 033.36
630 028.25
581 109.79
565 551.42
Unrendered
Acres
1 060.28
483.65
5 412.16
4 412.81
10 089.88
21.53
24 594.83
772.89
760.49
2 037.40
7 182.39
54.00
1 569.72
1 669.58
7 913.37
7 107.58
Double or
Over-ren¬
dered Acres
1 218.75
131.24
3 357.84
2 311.43
7 232.18
32.17
9 195.31
749.72
554.62
874.03
3 978.53
27.00
404.37
1 367.78
527.73
7 076.80
DISTRICT TOTALS 9 181 218.65 9 217 321.71 75 142.56 39 039.50
The following counties in this district are not included in. the above
figures for the reason that the work of the Tax Survey was closed down
before completion and authentic totals are not available. The area of
these counties totals 5,160,900.06 acres, which is 56$ of the total area
listed above. We therefore could expect, if the work were completed, at
least as much discrepancy as appears above, so we can add 42,079.83 to
75,142.56, making a total unrendered acreage of 117,222.39 with a possible
deduction of 60,901.62 acres or a net gain to this district of 56,320.77
acres.
Bailey ♦King
♦Borden Lamb
Cottle Stonewall
♦Gaines *Yoakum
♦In the counties indicated by the Tax Survey did not operate at all.
-50
DISTRICT NUMBER NINETEEN
County
acreage
1937
Tax Rolls
Acreage
State-wide
Tax Survey
Unrendered
Acres
Double or
Over-rendered
Acres
Brown
598
171.79
600
672.34
4
025.48
1
524.93
Coke
627
895.01
630
683.14
4
236.46
1
448.33
Coleman
800
690.79
811
196.24
19
671.85
9
167.40
Concho
621
003.63
621
433.43
1
511.64
1
081.84
Howard
573
071.48
573
925.89
2
436.47
1
582.06
Kimble
786
656.62
788
504.02
1
941.93
94.53
McCulloch
671
262.51
671
425.03
190.48
27.96
Mason
558
210.97
553
944.73
2
087.38
1
353.62
Menard
561
517.24
551
851.94
1
095.68
760.98
Midland
572
474.76
572
011.19
447.05
910.62
Mitchell
579
138.22
580
516.63
3
286.13
1
907.72
Nolan
584
440.21
585
031.08
1
150.52
559.65
Runnels
664
654.99
664
688.87
1
151.73
1
117.85
Schleicher
834
957.55
839
033.92
5
096.31
1
019.94
Sterling
585
427.57
586
725.63
1
610.11
312.05
Taylor
965
760.77
964
626.19
2
610.86
3
745.44
Tom Green
965
760.77
964
626.19
2
610.86
3
745.44
DISTRICT TOTaLD 11 136
626.72 11 162
620.84
53
362.42
27
368.30
The following counties in this district are not included in the above
figures for the reason that the work of the Tax Survey was closed down
before completion and authentic totals are not available. The area of
these counties totals 12,792,428.06 acres, which is 114$ of the total area
listed above. We therefore could expect, if the work were completed, at
least as much discrepancy as appears above, so we can add 60,833.16 to
53,362.42, making a total unrendered acreage of 114,195.58 with a possible
deduction of 58,568.16 acres or a net gain to this district of 55,627.42
acres.
"Andrews "Glasscock "Sutton
"Crane "-Irion Upton
"Crockett "Martin Pecos
"Ector "Reagan Terrell
"In
the counties indicated by M"" the Tax Survey did not operate at all,
-51
DISTRICT NUMBER TWENTY
County
Brewster
El Paso
Presidio
Reeves
Winkler
Acreage
1937
Tax Rolls
3 741 080.43
583 035.81
2 379 965.01
962 643.07
418 995.10
Acreage
State-wide
Tax Survey
3 811 231.73
581 376.75
2 378 173.24
942 461.02
425 511.46
Unrendered Double or
Acres Over-rendered
Acres
77 502.22
3 809.07
42 048.24
23 931.67
23 139.73
7 350.92
5 468.13
43 840.01
44 113.72
16 623.37
DISTRICT TOTALS 8 085 719.42
8 138 754.20
170 430.93 117 396.15
The following counties in this district are not included in the
above figures for the reason that the work of the Tax Survey was closed
down before completion and authentic totals are not available. The area
of these counties totals 6,727,961.04 acres, which is 83% of the total
area listed above. We therefore could expect, if the work were completed,
at least as much discrepancy as appears above, so we can add 141,457.67 to
170,430.93, making a total unrendered acreage of 311,888.60 with a possi¬
ble deduction of 214,834.95 acres or a net gain to this district of
97,053.65 acres.
^Culberson *Loving
Hudspeth *Ward
*Jeff Davis
*In the counties indicated by the Tax Survey did not operate at all.
52-
SUMMARY FOR TEE STATE
BY DISTRICT
District
Number
1
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
16
17
19
20
Acreage
1937
Tax Rolls
4 498 176.66
6 554 098.77
8 629 129.78
9 302 737.56
6 174 330.35
Acreage
State-wide
Tax Survey
4 659 977.28
6 625 817.06
8 885 189.35
9 343 219.07
6 490 449.09
14 492 853.01
9 181 218.65
11 136 626.72
8 085 719.42
14 577 367.94
9 217 321.71
11 162 620.84
8 138 754.20
Unrendered
Acres
299 404.33
170 200.82
516 192.96
115 453.03
406 733.52
5 409 880.19 5 401 334.33 182 375.96
5 324 657.69 5 324 443.72 63 467.59
450 615.48
75 142.56
53 362.42
170 430.93
Double or
Over-rendered
Acres
137 603.71
98 482.53
260 133.39
74 971.52
90 614.78
191 421.82
63 681.56
366 105.55
39 039.50
27 368.30
117 396.15
STATE TOTALS 88 789 433.80 89 826 494.59 2 503 879.60 1 466 818.81
RE-CAPITULATION OF SUMMARY
Untaxed acreage discovered prior to January 1, 1937
(est)
Untaxed acreage in uncompleted counties
(est)
-53
400 000.00
Untaxed acreage discovered since January 1, 1937
(as per report) 2 503 879>60
1 988 475.89
Total untaxed acreage in 208 counties 4 892 355.49
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
At the time this Project was approved by the Works Progress
Administration authorities in Washington it was agreed that upon its
conclusion efforts would be made to correct the weaknesses in the tax
structure of this State through legislative action based on the find¬
ings of this Survey. Since the Federal Government, together with the
State Government, has expended in the neighborhood of $3,000,000 in
cash, to say nothing of the thirty-three months of labor, it would
seem little short of a calamity if the results of this Survey were
not put to some practical use.
As previously noted in this report, the Constitution of
Texas provides for what is known as voluntary rendition of property;
and while the law does not make it mandatory for the assessing auth¬
orities to accept such renditions without question, it can be safely
assumed that such is the case in practically all instances. The Tax
Assessor, being human and mindful that his continuance in office is
dependent upon the friendship and goodwill of the taxpayer, naturally
is reluctant to question too closely such renditions, which results
in the last analysis, in the taxpayer paying just the amount of taxes
he desires to pay. In practically every county in the State we have
found that land is rendered for taxation at a basic value per acre with¬
out any consideration at all given to the improvements thereon, which,
-54-
of course, is an evasion of the Statutes. Heretofore the taxing auth¬
orities have not been provided with such detailed information regarding
taxable property, and if any questions did arise it would have required
a personal inspection on the part of the Tax Assessor. This procedure
has been most difficult not only for the reason mentioned above but
also due to lack of time and sufficient help in his office. In the
opinion of the writer, practically all of our tax difficulties can be
traced to this Constitutional provision of "voluntary renditions."
It is not my intention to recommend a Constitutional amend¬
ment to cure this situation but rather that some provision be made by
which such renditions can be reviewed and verified in the light of the
information disclosed by this Survey.
It will be recalled that during the Forty-Fifth Legislature
a bill was introduced in the House, which was commonly known as the
McFarland Bill, having as its chief purpose the equalization of all
taxes. This bill failed of passage by a narrow margin; and while it
is not my purpose to discuss its merits as a whole, I do feel that one
section thereof, with possible modifications, could be enacted into a
law and greatly improve a decayed and worm-eaten tax structure. I am
making particular reference to that section of this bill which provided
for a research department, under the jurisdiction of the Tax Commis¬
sioner, whose duty it would be to check the assessment roll of each
-55-
county against the information secured on the Tax survey and to call to
the attention of the local Commissioners' Court any irregularities,
omissions, or obvious evasions which might be disclosed. This bill
further provided that when such irregularities were discovered the tax
roll would be returned to the Tax Assessor with such irregularities
noted and with the request that the County Board of Equalization revise
such assessment in line with the facts pertaining thereto.
Much could be said with respect to the inequality of taxa¬
tion not only as between individuals within a county but also as be¬
tween counties themselves. Since the Constitution provides that the
county taxing authorities shall also assess property for State pur¬
poses at the same time and on the same basis that such property is as¬
sessed for county purposes, it is quite obvious that in counties whose
budgetary requirements are low, valuations are correspondingly low; and
although the State tax rate applies equally in all counties, yet each
county is permitted by law to set its own tax rate. This results in
some counties setting a low valuation and a high county tax rate; and
although this provides sufficient revenue for their county, this pro¬
cedure greatly reduces State revenue on property which should be valued
practically the same as in adjoining counties. No remedy is here sug¬
gested for this condition, but the situation is merely being pointed
out as one of the contributing factors of the State's deplorable fin¬
ancial condition.
-56-
In. concluding this report I should like to make this obser¬
vation: If the State could provide a means by which the valuation of
all property within its boundaries were equalized and then if all
taxes which are NOW provided by the Statutes WOULD be collected, the
present State tax rate of sixty-two and one-half cents per one hundred
dollars of valuation could be easily reduced to a mere eight or nine
cents per one hundred dollars o'f valuation; or by maintaining the
present tax rate a huge surplus could be built up which would go a
long way toward meeting the obligations of the Social Security Plan
voted by the people two years ago.
I cannot close this report without gratefully acknowledging
the assistance given by the State Planning Board, Dr- L. P. Gabbard
of the Division of Farm and Ranch Economics of the Texas A. & M. Col¬
lege, the Commissioners of the General Land Office, and the various
county officials whose interest, cooperation, and advice have been
very helpful in making this Project a worth while undertaking.
-57-