.XY\ 
 
 uML 
 
 'mIo /yP 
 
 
 REPORT 
 
 <p: 
 
 OF 
 
 PROF. EDWARD W. BEMIS 
 
 J 
 
 • r 
 
 AND 
 
 CARL H. NAU 
 
 Public Accountant 
 
 ON THE 
 
 True Value of Ohio Railroads 
 
 For the Purpose of Taxation. 
 
 Prepared at the Request of 
 
 HON. TOM L. JOHNSON, 
 
 Mayor of Cleveland, 
 
 AND WITH HIS APPROVAL AS TO RESULTS. 
 
 1 9 ° 3 - 
 
*THE MAGNITUDE OF TAX EVASIONS BY 
 THE RAILROADS. 
 
 The railroads of Ohio are appraised for taxation this year at.$ 129,062,974 
 
 The market value at the time of assessment was.. . 627,665,073 
 
 The percentage of assessed to salable value was thus only.20.5 per cent 
 
 Even if they were assessed at only 60 per cent of their true value, 
 
 they would be assessed for. 376,599,041 
 
 This exceeds the present assessment by.. 247,536,067 
 
 If they were assessed for this latter amount they would pay to the 
 
 several counties and their subdivisions. 6,780,631.99 
 
 Amount actually paid in 1902 on the basis of the assessment of 
 
 the County Boards was. 2,296,215.90 
 
 An assessment at 60 per cent of true value would result in a gain 
 
 in taxes to the several counties of. 4,484,416.09 
 
 The roads paid a state excise tax, June 30, 1901-02, of 1-2 per cent 
 
 of their gross receipts, the tax amounting to. 448,496.39 
 
 This state tax, thanks to the agitation already stirred up by Mr. 
 
 Johnson, was raised to 1 per cent of the gross receipts in the 
 spring of 1902, and brings to the state during the tax year 
 
 1902-03 ..". 1.010,013.41 
 
 The length of the first line below represents the true value of the rail¬ 
 
 roads, the second line represents 60 per cent of this value, and the third 
 line represents the actual assessed value. 
 
 True value, $627,665,073. 
 
 60 per cent of true value, $376,599,041. 
 
 Assessment, $129,062,974. 
 
 This pamphlet goes to press in September, 1903, before the action of the 
 State Board of Equalization of Railroad Assessments, and is thus necessarily 
 based on the assessment of the county auditors, but the State Board has de¬ 
 cided that it cannot raise the total. In the case of a half a dozen insignificant 
 roads the assessment for 1903, even by the county auditors, could not be ascer¬ 
 tained, and the assessment of the roads for 1902 was therefore taken. 
 
 According to the report of the Secretary of State, the steam railroads paid 
 only $2,296,215.90 of taxes in 1902, or only 1.92 per cent on the assessment of 
 $119,723,674 of that year. This is, of course, exclusive of the state excise tax 
 and of the unreported but comparatively small amount of taxes on property 
 not used in the regular operation of the roads. The so-called ‘‘grand duplicate” 
 or assessment of all property in Ohio in 1902 was $1,990,885,388, and the taxes 
 on the same, aside from special assessments were $43,819,603.76, or 2.2 per cent. 
 If the railroad assessment of $119,723,674 by the county auditors and the tax 
 thereon of $2,296,215.90 be deducted, there remains a tax of $41,523,387.86, or 
 2 :22 per cent on the $1,871,161,714 of other property. THAT IS, THE RAIL¬ 
 ROADS NOT ONLY ESCAPE WITH AN ASSESSMENT OF 20.5 PER 
 CENT OF THEIR TRUE VALUE, WHICH IS ONE-HALF TO ONE-THIRD 
 OF THE AVERAGE ASSESSMENT ON FARMS AND CITY REAL ES¬ 
 TATE. BUT EVEN ON THEIR LOW ASSESSMENT THE ROADS PAY 
 A TAX OF ONLY 1.92 PER CENT, AS COMPARED WITH 2.22 PER CENT 
 BY OTHER PROPERTY. This is because the state law apportions 
 the property of railroads for taxation according to mileage, and thus 
 puts a large majority of it, including the immensely valuable terminals, into 
 country districts, where the tax rate on all property averages much lower than 
 in the cities, where a large proportion of the “grand duplicate” is located, 
 and where a higher tax rate prevails. 
 
 The state excise tax, in the past, has done little more than equalize this 
 difference in the tax rate, without atoning for the large under assessment. The- 
 local tax above described of $2,296,215.90 and the excise tax of $448,496.39 in 
 1902 make a total of $2,744,812.29, or only 2.29 per cent on the assessment. The 
 
 ♦Much of the data eiven in this pamphlet, applicable to the # individual railroads, was 
 furnished the local Assessing: Boards of County Auditors prior to their action upon the railroad 
 assessment of 1903. With some revisions and enlargements this material is here printed in a 
 comprehensive and codified form. 
 
new state tax of $1,010,885.80 for 1902-03 will make the rate only 2.76 per cent. 
 Now, a rate on property in general of 2.22 per cent, assessed at 60 per cent of 
 its true value, is equivalent to 1.33 per cent on its true value. Even if farm 
 property and city real estate be assessed on the average at only 50 per cent of 
 its true value, this tax rate of 2.22 per cent is equal to 1.11 per cent on the true 
 value. On the other hand, the new railroad tax rate of 2.76 per cent on an 
 assessment of 20.5 per cent of the true value means only 0.566 per cent. 
 
 THUS, IF WE EXCLUDE SMALL LOCAL TAXES ON PROPERTY 
 NOT USED IN THE DAILY OPERATION OF THE ROADS, THE LAT- 
 - TER, EVEN WITH THE NEW EXCISE TAX, PAY ONLY $5.66 ON 
 EVERY $1,000 OF SALABLE VALUE, WHILE THE FARMER AND THE 
 CITY HOME OWNER, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE WIDOW AND OR¬ 
 PHAN, WHOSE PROPERTY IS IN THE PROBATE COURT, PAY OVER 
 $11, OR TWICE AS MUCH. 
 
 Moreover, it is not the idea of the state excise tax to relieve the roads from 
 the same ratio of assessment to true value that is borne by other property and 
 required by the state constitution. The state excise tax is presumably intended 
 to exact from the roads some measure of return, however inadequate, for the 
 enormously valuable special privileges conferred by state law, and which the 
 ordinary farmer and business man do not enjoy. These special privileges are 
 the right to secure a continuous, uninterrupted right of way from one end of 
 the state to the other, and from the heart of Cincinnati or Cleveland to the 
 business center of Toledo, Columbus or Dayton, as the case may be. But 
 Ohio neither makes the state tax at all adequate to cover these special privi¬ 
 leges, nor do the assessments by the county boards, and the taxes thereon 
 amount to one-half what is imposed on the competitive business of farming 
 and on the homes of the people. Is this fair? It is right? 
 
 Instead of mending, conditions are growing worse. For several years 
 prior to 1894, the earnings of the railroads in Ohio as a whole were not given 
 in the reports of the state railroad commissioner, the office then being held by 
 ex-Congressman Norton. Comparing 1894 with 1902, however, it appears that 
 during those eight years the gross earnings from operation of the roads within 
 the state increased from $60,140,831 to $101,001,341, or 67.9 per cent, and the 
 net earnings from $16,910,176 to $32,217,512, or 90.5 per cent, while the assess¬ 
 ment was raised from $107,969,214 to $119,723,674, or only 10.9 per cent. To be 
 sure, the assessment in 1903 was 7.8 per cent more than in 1902, but the some¬ 
 what incomplete data at hand reveals a still larger increase in earnings. 
 
 McKINLEY’S TAX COMMISSION. 
 
 Even in 1893, the state tax commission, appointed by Governor McKinley, 
 declared: “It is clear that the railways of the state paid taxes on a higher 
 valuation in 1878 than they did in 1892. It is proper to add that the year 1878 
 has been casually selected, and not because the valuations of that year in any 
 
 material way differed from other years of that period.The 
 
 commission is forced to the irresistible conclusion that owners of railway prop¬ 
 erty do not pay anything like the amount of the taxes which are paid by other 
 people, either in proportion to the earnings received, or in proportion to the 
 value of their properties. There seem to be constantly at work influences which 
 pull down and keep down the appraised values of these properties. If the 
 j. question were looked at from only one standpoint, it might perhaps admit of 
 some explanation. So many different considerations, however, all pointing to the 
 same conclusion, have, of course, a cumulative force. If these influences, con- 
 ■j stantly at work, have been so potent in the past, they will continue to operate in 
 the same way in the future.” 
 
 As shown above, this prediction in the closing sentence has proved correct. 
 5 Even with the one per cent tax on gross receipts, the total taxes paid by roads 
 in 1902-03 are only about 3.6 per cent of their gross receipts and 11.3 per cent 
 of their net earnings. In contrast with this the Ohio tax commission in 1893 
 stated that “Investments in real estate in Cleveland and elsewhere pay from 
 16 to 25 per cent of their gross rentals in taxes, while banks pay 20 per cent 
 or more of their net income in taxes.” 
 
 UNRELIABILITY OF THE STATE REPORTS. 
 
 Although forced in many cases to rely on the state reports, they have been 
 found so inaccurate as to arouse much suspicion of whatever they give. 
 
 U * RO a 
 
Two examples may be cited: The Interstate Commerce Commission, in its 
 last published volume of “Statistics,” pages 93-4, gives the total taxes paid by 
 all the Ohio roads, June 30, 1900-01, as $74,253.43 less than is given in the 
 report of the Ohio Railway Commissioner for the same period (Report 1901. 
 pp. 257, 271). 
 
 Again, our state commissioner, after some correspondence and an inter¬ 
 view, has admitted,, through his chief clerk, to the following mistakes on a 
 single page of summaries, page 21, of his report for 1902: 
 
 (1) He gives on this page the taxes paid in Ohio for 1902, which 
 include' the excise taxes and all other taxes, even U. S. revenue. Then he gives 
 the excise taxes separately, and for a later date, when they were over 100 per cent 
 larger, without explaining the change of date. 
 
 (2) Finally, he adds together the latter tax and the total first given and 
 reduces this absolutely false and magnified total to a mileage basis, as the total 
 for the year, and all on the same page! 
 
 (3) Even his first total is now admitted to be wrong by over $250,000, and 
 is in conflict with other totals on pages 271 and 285. 
 
 METHOD OF DETERMINING THE TRUE VALUE 
 OF RAILROADS. 
 
 The state constitution requires all property to be assessed at its “true value 
 in money.” The United States Courts have repeatedly and consistently held that 
 under such a provision a legislature may justly order the assessing board to 
 fix upon the market value of the securities of a company as the true value of 
 its property, in Ohio the Nichols law (Revised Stat. Sec. 2777-80, April 27, 
 1893,) applies this method in large measure to express, telegraph and telephone 
 companies. 
 
 In the absence of any statutory methods of assessment relative to railroads, 
 the boards of county auditors are free, and are in duty bound to interpret what 
 law there is in the light of the constitution and assess the entire “true value in 
 money” not given under the head of rolling stock, moneys, buildings, etc., as 
 included under “roadbed” or under property not otherwise assessed. But only 
 the auditor of Cuyahoga county has tried to do this, and he has in every case been 
 outvoted. 
 
 The true principle was well expressed in the famous decision, never since 
 overruled, of the United States Supreme Court in an Illinois tax case (State’s 
 Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, quoted and reaffirmed in Railroad vs. 
 Backus, 154 U. S. 429) : “It is obvious that when you have ascertained the 
 current cash value of the whole funded debt and the current cash value of the 
 entire number of shares, you have, by the action of those who, above all 
 others, can best estimate it, the true value of the road.” 
 
 The United States Supreme Court in upholdindg the Nichols law (Adams 
 Express Co. vs. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U. S., 185, decided March 15, 1897,) 
 made the following ringing declarations : 
 
 “Whenever separate articles of tangible property are joined together, not 
 simply by unity of ownership, but in a unity of use, there is not infrequently 
 developed a property, intangible though it may be, which in value exceeds the 
 aggregate of the value of the separate pieces of tangible property. Upon what 
 theory of substantial right can it be adjudged that the value of this intangible 
 property must be excluded from the tax lists, and the only property placed 
 thereon be the separate pieces of tangible property?.Accumu¬ 
 
 lated wealth will laugh at the crudity of taxing laws which reach only the one 
 and ignore the other; while they who own tangible property not organized into 
 a single producing plant will feel the injustice of a system which so misplaces 
 the burden of taxation.What a mockery of substantial jus¬ 
 
 tice it would be for a corporation whose property is worth to its stockholders, 
 for the purposes of income and sale, $16,800,000, to be adjudged liable for taxa¬ 
 tion upon only one-fourth of that amount. The value which property bears in 
 the market, the amount for which its stock can be bought and sold, is the real 
 value. Business men do not pay cash for property in moonshine or dreamland. 
 They buy and pay for that which is of value in its power to produce income, or 
 for purposes of sale.” 
 
 This decision was in no way overruled, as some railroad attorneys perversely 
 claim, by the Pullman Palace Car Company decision in 1898 (171 U. S. 138). 
 which merely ordered that the accounting for certain physical property and con¬ 
 tracts transferred under an illegal lease should not take into account the value 
 
of securities because “the market value of the shares of this stock was made up, 
 to some extent at least, of certain factors which the lessee cannot, under the rules 
 of law, be held responsible for in this case . . . in an utterly void lease.” 
 
 The fact that corporation attorneys have been able to find no stronger case 
 than his in their behalf shows the weakness of their cause. 
 
 With regard to railroad property, the Ohio Legislature has imposed no 
 method upon the assessing bodies. They are left free to carry out the spirit 
 and letter of the constitution and laws of the State. The Supreme Court has, 
 however, said that the earning power of property ought to be considered and 
 that the mere cost of construction or of duplication of the tangible assets of a 
 plant is not its true value in money as a going concern. 
 
 State ex rel. vs. Halliday, 61 O. S. 376. 
 
 In the case last cited the State Auditor instructed the auditor of Franklin 
 county to return telephone instruments leased from the American Bell Telephone 
 Company not at their cost, namely $3.42, but at a capitalization of their rental 
 value of $14 per annum. On page 379, the court says: 
 
 “The legislature, it will be observed, has made no attempt to prescribe the 
 means by which the money value of an article for taxation may be ascertained, 
 nor in any way to limit the inquiry. It has left open to the person who is to 
 perform this duty every avenue that leads to information which in its nature 
 bears on the question. The conscientious officer will avail himself of all such 
 information. No fact or circumstance having such bearing will be disregarded 
 by him if called to his attention. That the income producing capacity of an article 
 is an important factor in determining its value is so obvious as to seem beyond 
 the bounds of controversy. This doctrine was sanctioned in its application to 
 real estate in State vs. Jones, auditor, 51 Ohio St., 513, and in Express Co. vs. 
 Ohio, 166 U. S. 220, and no reason is perceived nor has any been assigned why 
 a principle so plain and just should not be applied universally to all species of 
 property.” 
 
 From which it appears that the county auditors and the State Board of 
 Equalization are by no means confined to the bric-a-brac value of the separate 
 items going to make up a railroad, but in the conscientious performance of their 
 duty should consider earning capacity and every other sort of evidence which 
 will enable them faithfully to enforce the constitutional and statutory provision 
 for a uniform distribution of the tax burdens of the state upon all the property 
 therein found, at its “true value in money.” 
 
 It may be urged that taxation at the selling price of the entire property would 
 be a taxation of its franchises or good will and that “franchises” are not taxable 
 in Ohio. The franchise to be a body corporate is not taxable, but the value which 
 property derives from its use, from being in a certain place at a certain time, 
 from its relation to other property, is in reality its entire value and no sound 
 distinction can be made between the physical property and its time and place and 
 use elements. 
 
 Many cases arise in which the value of property is difficult of determination 
 by mere inspection and estimate; the constituent elements of a railroad are not 
 in the market; but the railroad as a whole is in the market and has a readily 
 ascertainable real value in money. Its debts, represented by bonds and floating 
 indebtedness, together with the market value of its stocks, represent accurately 
 the exact price necessary to buy a minority holding, which always costs less than 
 a controlling interest. Taking the market value of minority shares protects the 
 property from over-valuation due to competition for control, or from other market 
 disturbance. 
 
 In very many states exactly this method of valuation is followed. In Illi¬ 
 nois, when a Board of Equalization, without express statutory authority, adopted 
 this rule, its correctness and justice was sustained in the highest state courts 
 and in the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 
 State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 598. 
 
 FOURTEEN TYPICAL RAILROADS. 
 
 A few roads, representing 6 per cent of the mileage and 3 per cent of the 
 total assessment, report very small or no net earnings and have no quotations 
 
 on their securities. 
 
 Another group of roads, with 34 per cent of the mileage and 25 per cent 
 of the assessment, report liberal net earnings, but their securities are not suffi- 
 
ciently quoted to justify their use as a fair measure of the value of the roads 
 to which they belong. 
 
 A third group, however, of 14 railroad systems, covering 60 per cent of the 
 mileage, 66 per cent of the net earnings and 72 per cent of the assessment, are 
 so fully quoted in the stock market as to make those quotations for April, 1903, 
 which were in most cases the lowest for the 12 months preceding the May as¬ 
 sessment, fairly representative of the “true value in money’' of these roads. In 
 no case were exceptionally high quotations considered. But just as the market 
 value of horses is fixed by the prices obtained for the comparatively small pro¬ 
 portion of horses that are yearly sold, so railroad stocks and bonds are fixed in 
 price by the prices secured in such sales as do occur. Of nearly every class of 
 security of these 14 systems there have been frequent sales during the past year. 
 
 There is evidence that the real value of some of the Ohio roads is con¬ 
 siderably higher than is reflected directly in the value of their securities. Part 
 of the. value appears in the value of the securities of eastern roads that hold a 
 majority of the stock, and in order to turn freight in their direction or for other 
 reasons divert a considerable portion of the net income of the Ohio roads into 
 permanent betterments or the purchase of additional properties. Many other 
 roads not so owned do not pay out in dividends their entire earnings, but with¬ 
 hold a considerable portion of such earnings in surplus or apply it to perma¬ 
 nent betterments; all of which facts undoubtedly influence the market price of 
 the securities and tend to make them somewhat lower than if the moneys actually 
 earned were declared in dividends. For instance: 
 
 The Cleveland & Pittsburg Railroad is leased to the Pennsylvania Co. for 
 999 years for a rental of 7 per cent on its stock, interest on its bonds and organ¬ 
 ization expenses. These payments by the lessor company (Pennsylvania Com¬ 
 pany) to the lessee company (C. & P.) for the year ending December 31, 1902, 
 amounted to $1,184,737.34; but the Pennsylvania Company in operating the 
 C. & P. had made net earnings sufficient to pay this rental and leave a surplus 
 of $1,507,880.46, which increased the value of the Pennsylvania Co., but had little 
 effect upon the value of the securities of the C. & P. in the market. Hence, 
 the quotations of 185 1-4 used in the following calculations on its stock do 
 not fully represent the earnings or the value of the road. 
 
 The same is true of the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis, which 
 for the year ending December 31, 1902, had a net income, after paying all rentals, 
 interest, etc., of $3,021,983.64. After paying a dividend of 3 per cent on its com¬ 
 mon and 4 per cent on its preferred stock, amounting to $1,651,222.50, there was 
 still left out of its net income a surplus of $1,370,761.14, which was set aside 
 and used for extra expenditures in improving its property, revising grades, etc., 
 and in contributions to its sinking funds. After making all these liberal allow¬ 
 ances this year and other years for capital expenditures out of its earnings, it 
 still has an accumulated surplus in the profit and loss account of $3,696,512.55 
 because of the low dividends. However, the common stock sold for only 77 3-4, 
 and the preferred for only 100. 
 
 Concerning the Zanesville & Western, we have very recent information as 
 to its value. This railroad was formerly a part of the Columbus, Sandusky & 
 H'ocking, and was bought in the fall of 1902 by the Hocking Valley, and in 
 part payment (perhaps total) therefor, the latter issued $1,000,000 of its pre¬ 
 ferred stock, which sells for 97 7-8, and $587,400 of its common stock, selling 
 at 102. This payment, therefore, would amount to $1,568,718. This road was 
 assessed by the auditors at $406,943.00. 
 
 It will be observed that while on the average these 14 systems are assessed 
 at 22.66 per cent of their market value, the ratio varies from the lowest, which 
 is part of the Baltimore & Ohio system, viz., the Cleveland, Lorain & Wheeling, 
 which is assessed at only 12.71 per cent of its value, to that branch of the Penn¬ 
 sylvania system, the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis, which is 
 assessed at 34.19 per cent of its value. The common explanation given by the 
 auditors for the high relative assessment of this road is that it alone of all the 
 roads gives no passes. The Pennsylvania Company, it should be stated, however, 
 makes much higher returns of the value of its rolling stock than do the other 
 roads. 
 
 (See Table on Pages 10 and 11.) 
 
THE VALUE OF THE OTHER ROADS. 
 
 In the case of the 14 large roads whose securities have been carefully studied, 
 the net earnings before paying taxes were 5.24 per cent, of the market value. In 
 other words, the net earnings multiplied by 19.08 would give the market value. 
 
 Applying this ratio to the roads that report net earnings, but whose securi¬ 
 ties are not widely quoted, the value of these roads is computed to be $204,793,457. 
 
 With respect to the few roads which report very small or no net earnings 
 and whose assessment is only 3 per cent, of the total, the method adopted is to 
 assume the assessed value to be as much below the real value as has been found 
 true of the 14 roads above given. 
 
 The following table summarizes the three classes. By class I. is meant those 
 14 roads whose securities have been studied. Under class II. is included the 
 other roads which report net earnings. The rest are included in class III.: 
 
 Class. 
 
 Mileage. 
 
 % of Mileage 
 
 % of 
 
 Appraisal. 
 
 Appraisal,1903 
 
 True Value. 
 
 60% of True 
 Value. 
 
 I. 
 
 5.298.7 
 
 60 
 
 72 
 
 $ 92,439,297 
 
 $407,961,596 
 
 $244,776,957 
 
 II. 
 
 | 2.987.1 
 
 34 
 
 25 
 
 39,242,720 
 
 204,793,457 
 
 122,876,072 
 
 Ill. 
 
 598.8 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 3,380,957 
 
 1 
 
 14,910,020 
 
 8,946,012 
 
 
 8,884.6 
 
 100 | 
 
 1 
 
 100 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i$129,062,974 
 
 $627,665,073 
 
 $376,599,041 
 
 In the case of eight very small roads, having a total mileage of only 39 
 miles and an assessment in 1902 of $690,985, the appraisal of that year is used 
 above instead of the one for 1903, because the assessment of those roads for 1903 
 has not yet (Sept. 12, 1903) been reported to the state auditor. 
 
 The average ratio of assessed to true value in the case of farms, homes and 
 small places of business is commonly assumed to be 60 per cent. It is less in 
 the largest cities and greater in many country districts. 
 
 A letter was sent in 1901 to each of the 88 county treasurers of the state, 
 asking them what in their judgment was the ratio of the assessed to the true 
 value of farms in their respective counties. Of the 51 officials who replied. 12. 
 or 23 per cent., reported the ratio as from 33 to 50 per cent.; 11 others, or 22 per 
 cent., gave the ratio as 50 to 59 per cent., and the remaining 28, or 55 per cent, of 
 all those replying, reported the ratio as from 60 to SO per cent. The average of 
 the entire 51 counties reporting was 54.1 per cent. The average in case of city 
 and village real estate in these same counties was 53.6 per cent. 
 
 It thus appears that in the majority of the counties heard from, farm proper¬ 
 ties are supposed by the County Treasurers to be assessed at 60 per cent., 
 or over, of their true value, while 47 per cent, of the county treasurers 
 reported the same with respect to city and village real estate. The one- 
 fourth of the. counties reporting assessments of less than 50 per cent, on 
 farm properties and the 26 per cent, of the counties reporting assessments 
 of less than 50 per cent, of the true value in the case of city and village 
 real estate gave no figures lower than 33 per cent. If the railroads, then, were 
 assessed no higher in proportion to their true value than the very lowest returns 
 of any of the 51 counties reporting, the roads would be assessed 60 per cent., or 
 $78,000,000, more than at present. 
 
 UNDER ASSESSMENT EVEN OF PHYSICAL 
 PROPERTY. 
 
 Not only have our railroads thus far escaped all assessment on the large 
 excess in the value of their roads, as a whole, above the value of their mere 
 physical property, but even their cars, locomotives, track, etc., have in most cases 
 been assessed at much less than half their value. Some examples follow. In the 
 printed annual reports of many of the roads to their stockholders for the year 
 ending June 30 or December 31, 1902, are given the amounts spent that year 
 for equipment and other improvements. 
 
 The contrast between these figures and the returns that these railroads made 
 to the assessors in April and May. 1903, returns which in all cases were ac¬ 
 cepted by the assessors as substantially correct, is startling. 
 
 The Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton describes on page 7 of its report the fol- 
 
lowing additions to its passenger equipment: Two parlor cars, one combination 
 coach and parlor, two coaches, two postal and one 60-foot baggage car, the ag¬ 
 gregate cost being $63,912. The HIGHEST valuations at which this road re¬ 
 turns such equipment to the assessors is: Parlor cars at $1,500.00; combination 
 cars at $600,00; coaches; $1,000.00; postal cars, $1,500.00; baggage cars, $400.00; 
 which would make at these rates the total return for the above equipment pur¬ 
 chased $9,000, as against its cost of $63,912. The road acquired new freight cars 
 as follows: 250 box cars, 25 side dump coal cars, 11 flat cars, at a total cost 
 of $167,108. The highest prices at which this kind of equipment is returned is: 
 Box cars $150, coal cars $100 and flat cars $80, which would make the above 
 equipment worth only $40,880. The road also bought five new freight loco¬ 
 motives and two switch engines and sold or scrapped an equal number of old 
 “light engines” and charged the difference $84,448 to new equipment, which 
 would make an average cost for locomotives of $12,064 each, plus the value 
 of the old light engines sold. Yet the road returns its best freight locomotives 
 at $2,500 each and its poorest at $1,000, and its best switching locomotives 
 at $2,000 each and its poorest at $800 each. This would make the return for 
 all the foregoing new locomotives $16,500 even on the basis of the highest 
 values admitted by the company, as against $84,448 actually paid, plus the 
 value of the old engines. 
 
 The same report shows that the Indiana, Decatur & Western (which is a 
 part of the C., H. & D. system and is a consolidation under the name of the Cin¬ 
 cinnati, Indianapolis & Western of the above road and its Ohio branch, the Cin¬ 
 cinnati, Hamilton Indianapolis) bought 500 box cars, for which it paid cash 
 $68,697 and gave 4 per cent, notes for $'244,000. This would make the average 
 cost $625. This railroad returns all of its box cars at $150 each. 
 
 The Hocking Valley road, on page 6 of its report, states that it acquired and 
 charged to operating expenses for the fiscal year, 10 freight engines, costing $122,- 
 801.77, or an average of $12,280 each; 5 switching engines, costing $52,349.90, an 
 average of $10,470 each; 75 steel dump cars, costing $57,825, an average of $771 
 each; 4,520 gondola coal cars, costing $2,914,941, an average of $645 each; and 
 on May 1st, 1902, issued $1,600,000 4 1-2 per cent, car trust bonds to provide for 
 the purchase of 3,020 new coal cars, which is an average of $530 each. They re¬ 
 turn their highest-priced freight locomotives at $3,000 each, their highest-priced 
 switching locomotives at $3,000 each, 75 steel dump cars (evidently the same 
 purchased.above) at $200 each, their gondola cars at $120 each, and the highest- 
 priced coal cars of any kind at $120 each. 
 
 The Kanawha & Michigan, on page 3 of its report states that during the 
 year it charged to its equipment reserve fund $91,450 for 8 new freight engines, 
 an average of $11,431 each; also 6 cabooses and 2 tool cars, costing $12,357.86, 
 an average of $1,544 each. It states that it bought of the Hocking Valley 2,500 
 gondola coal cars for $1,375,000, an average of $550 each, but returns its freight 
 locomotives at $2,500, cabooses at $150, some gondola cars at $80 and $115 each, 
 and 2,499 gondola cars (evidently the ones above purchased from the Hocking 
 Valley) at $150 each, and only one tool car, and that at only $100—a great de¬ 
 preciation, surely! 
 
 The Kanawha & Michigan charged during the year to its capital account for 
 improvements and betterments $1,724,363.99 for the above equipment and other 
 betterments. Since 38 per cent, of the mileage of the road is in Ohio, 38 per cent, 
 of these betterments, or $655,257 should be assessed in this state, but its entire 
 assessment in Ohio for the year 1902 was only $434,250, and in the year 1903 
 $636,535. 
 
 The N. Y. C. & St. L., on page 4 of its report, states that it contracted for 
 15 consolidated engines, costing $225,000, which is an average of $15,000 each. 
 The highest-priced locomotives it returns are its switching engines, and of these 
 it returns 15 (presumably the engines above purchased) at $3,302 each. 
 
 The Toledo & Ohio Central, on page 4 of its report, mentions the purchase 
 of 3 new passenger engines at $37,125, an average of $12,375 each, and 687 gondola 
 coal cars, costing $404,491, an average of $589 each. It returns its poorest loco¬ 
 motives at $1,000 and its best at only $3,000, and returns its gondola cars at $80, 
 $105 and $200. 
 
 The Erie Railway, on page 9 of its report, states that it charged $219,494, 
 one-half of the cost »of 25 consolidated locomotives purchased during the previous 
 year, to operating expenses. This would make them cost an average of $17,500 
 each; also that it had purchased 10 other consolidated locomotives, and on this 
 account had charged to operating expenses $160,000 during the year, making an 
 average of $16,000 each. It further reports that between Dec. 1, 1895, and June 
 
30, 1902, it had expended for 204 locomotives $2,728,085, which would be an 
 average for all locomotives purchased during this period of $13,372 ; and during 
 the same period it purchased 25 passenger cars, 3 baggage and 6 horse express 
 cars at a cost of $188,852, an average of $6,092 each, and had purchased 8,500 box 
 cars, 6,500 coal cars, 300 refrigerator cars, 184 flat cars, 100 furniture cars, and 6 
 milk cars at a cost of $10,538,078, an average for these freight cars of $675 each. 
 The Nypano Railway, which is part of the Erie system, returns its locomotives 
 at from $600 to $3,600, its passenger cars from $600 to $1,200, and its baggage, 
 mail and express cars from $400 to $900; box cars, $100 to $250; stock 
 cars, $100 to $150; flat cars at $120; gondola cars at $100 to $200, and coal dump 
 cars at $140 to $300. 
 
 The Big Four Railway reports the purchase of 2,800 freight cars for which 
 it paid $222,200.71, and upon which it states it still owes $1,372,146.56, which 
 would make the total cost average $606 per car, but it returns its gondola and 
 flat cars at $100, its stock cars at $125 and box cars at the highest valuation 
 of any freight car returned, $150 each. 
 
 The Cleveland & Pittsburgh, on page 5 of its report, states -that during the 
 year it had made the first annual payment of $56,883.50, being 1-10 of the entire 
 cost, for the purchase of 525 steel gondola cars, which would make an average 
 of $1,083.50 each, but it returns all of its coal gondola cars at $260 each. 
 
 Some of the railroad companies in their reports likewise print their in¬ 
 ventories, which give the valuation for the equipment owned by them at what 
 it is carried on their books at the present time, after making liberal allowances 
 for depreciation, etc. These inventories are usually from 2% to 3 times the 
 value returned by the roads to the assessors and accepted by them. For ex¬ 
 ample, the B. & O. Chicago Division returns its locomotives at an average 
 valuation of $2,004 each, as against an inventory valuation of $6,128 each. 
 It returns its passenger equipment at an average valuation of $1,090 each, 
 as against an inventory valuation of $2,411 each, and its freight car equip¬ 
 ment at an average valuation of $136 each, as against an inventory valuation 
 of $430 each. 
 
 MICHIGAN AND INDIANA. 
 
 That the assessment of the Ohio roads is not half the present value of even 
 their physical property, such as their rails, land, rolling stock and buildings, is 
 further proven by the evidence from Michigan. The most thorough, scientific 
 and judicial study ever undertaken in this country of the present day cost of con¬ 
 struction and of the depreciation thereon of all the railroads of a state was made 
 of the 7,813 miles of line in Michigan, by its state tax commission in 1900 and 
 1901. Every foot of road, every car, locomotive, building and machine shop 
 was personally inspected by competent engineers at large expense. 
 
 Deducting the value of steamships and ferries, and making full allow¬ 
 ance for depreciation, this commission, under the guidance of the famous Prof. 
 M. E. Cooley, of the University of Michigan, found the present physical value of 
 the Michigan roads to be $21,345 per mile. Compare this with the assessed value 
 of $14,527 for not only the physical property but for the entire monopoly and 
 franchise value of the Ohio roads that are worth as a whole $70,000 per mile. 
 
 The Michigan roads had only 39.3 miles of second track and sidings per 100 
 miles of main line at the time of the valuation, while Ohio now has 60.7 miles. 
 The equipment of the Michigan roads and their roadbed must have been far 
 less per mile than here, for the business of the Michigan roads as measured by 
 gross earnings, was not 1-3 as great per mile as of the Ohio roads, and the net 
 earnings were only 1-5 as much per mile in the northern state as here. Michi¬ 
 gan had only one city of over 100,000 population, Detroit with 285,704 in¬ 
 habitants in 1900. Ohio had four with an aggregate population of 965,052, and 
 thus had far more valuable terminals. Yet the actual physical assets of the 
 Michigan roads, as shown above, werefound to be 50 per cent, more in 1901 
 than the entire Ohio assessment. Where a road crosses the Michigan boun¬ 
 dary line the assessment per mile in Ohio in every case is only 1-2 to 1-3 as 
 much as even the structural value has been found to be in Michigan. 
 
 The railroads of Indiana are much less valuable per mile of main line and 
 branches than in Ohio. The earnings of the Indiana roads are not reported, but 
 they have only 43.1 miles of second track and sidings for every 100 miles of line, 
 while in Ohio there are 60.7 miles. Furthermore, the five largest cities of In¬ 
 diana had a population in 1900 of only 345,960, or only 1-3 of the' 1,050,435 in 
 Ohio’s five largest cities. Hence the value of rights of way and terminals must 
 
TABLE 
 
 ^RELATION OF ASSESSED TO TRUE VALU 
 
 RELATION OF TRUE V 
 
 NAME. 
 
 Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton: 
 
 Dayton & Michigan . 
 
 Columbus, Findlay & Northern . 
 
 Bowling Green . 
 
 Piqua & Troy Branch . 
 
 Cincinnati & Dayton. 
 
 Home Ave. 
 
 Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western .;. 
 
 Hamilton Belt .* .*. 
 
 Cleveland, Akron & Columbus .. 
 
 Big Four—Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis: 
 
 Cincinnati, Sandusky & Cleveland. 
 
 Cincinnati & Springfield .......... 
 
 Columbus, Springfield & Cincinnati . 
 
 Mt. Gilead Short Line. 
 
 Findlay Belt.. 
 
 Peoria & Eastern. 
 
 Harrison Branch.. 
 
 Cleveland, Lorain & Wheeling .. 
 
 Cleveland & Pittsburg.. 
 
 Detroit Southern. 
 
 Hocking Valley: 
 
 Zanesville & Western. 
 
 Wellston & Jackson Belt . 
 
 Toledo & Ohio Central .. 
 
 Toledo & Ohio Central, St. Mary’s Branch. 
 
 Kanawha & Michigan . 
 
 Lake Shore & Michigan Southern: 
 
 Mahoning Coal. 
 
 Lake Erie & Western: 
 
 Northern Ohio . 
 
 New York, Chicago & St. Louis.. 
 
 Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis: 
 
 Little Miami. 
 
 Front Street Connecting . 
 
 Pittsburg, Ft. Wayne & Chicago: 
 
 Massillon & Cleveland . 
 
 Toledo, St. Louis & Western .. 
 
 Wheeling & Lake Erie: 
 
 Toledo Belt. 
 
 Totals 
 
 This table covers 60 per cent, of the total R. R. mileage and 72 per cent ot the to 
 
 aPP Th S e e appra“?ed n vlh J e e for‘l902 has been used on the Harrison| Branch, 28,436, 
 Fron? St. Connecting, 49,005, the 1903 appraisal being not yet obtainable. 
 
 •The calculations ot true value in this pamphlet were based upon April Quotatk 
 MhV^. ‘ VM? “ Railroad capl 
 
I o. [ 
 
 OF FOURTEEN OHIO RAILROAD SYSTEMS 
 
 D 
 
 JE TO NET EARNINGS. 
 
 Miles in Ohio 
 of 
 
 Main Line 
 and 
 
 Branches. 
 
 J_ 
 
 Per Cent 
 of Ohio 
 to Total 
 Mileage 
 
 Value Appraised 
 _ by 
 
 County Auditors 
 for 1903. 
 
 Market Values 
 of 
 
 Securities. 
 
 Per Cenl 
 of 
 
 Appras’d 
 
 to 
 
 Market 
 
 Value. 
 
 j N et Earnings 
 from 
 
 Operation, 
 Year Ending 
 June 30, 
 1902. 
 
 PerCent 
 of Net 
 Earn’gs 
 to 
 
 Market 
 
 Value. 
 
 | 
 
 j 523.914 
 
 87.35 
 
 1 
 
 $ 5,758,238 
 
 $ 33,095,362 
 
 17.40 
 
 $ 2,028,757 
 
 6.13 
 
 J 
 
 >1 177.46 
 
 100. 
 
 1,630,646 
 
 5,736,180 
 
 28.43 
 
 375,212 
 
 6.54 
 
 Y 663.342 
 
 30.91 
 
 8,595,051 
 
 35,141,765 
 
 24.46 
 
 1,873,375 
 
 5.33 
 
 J 
 
 191.11 
 193.78 
 ^ 297.51 
 
 100. 
 
 92.56 
 
 77.71 
 
 1 
 
 2,375,812 | 
 6,258,478 | 
 1,724,116 | 
 
 I 
 
 18,693,000 | 
 28,954,002 | 
 7,859,019 | 
 
 12.71 
 
 21.62 
 
 21.94 
 
 1,184,717 
 
 2,069,940 
 
 189,960 
 
 I 6.33 
 7.15 
 2.42 
 
 r 891.86 
 
 j 
 
 | 449.52 | 
 
 90.23 
 
 1 
 
 11,363,538 | 
 
 ! 
 
 54,062,994 | 
 
 21.02 
 
 3,138,717 
 
 5.80 
 
 30.18 j 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 14,785,768 1 
 | 
 
 65,333,923 | 
 
 22.63 | 
 
 2,860,292 
 
 4.38 
 
 j 307.638 | 
 
 35.29 | 
 
 1,706,143 | 
 
 7,851.518 ! 
 
 21.73 1 
 
 295,325 
 
 3.76 
 
 239.49 | 
 
 49.14 | 
 
 3,383,675 1 
 | 
 
 18,775,118 | 
 
 18.02 
 
 804,100 
 
 4.29 
 
 \ 546.70 | 
 
 40.56 | 
 
 16,056,125 1 
 | 
 
 46,961,765 | 
 
 34.19 
 
 2,820,507 
 
 6.01 
 
 f 263.905 | 
 
 54.77 | 
 
 12,697.028 | 
 
 | 
 
 53.330,475 | 
 
 23.81 
 
 2,610,673 
 
 4.90 
 
 100.03 | 
 
 ) 
 
 22.19 | 
 
 822,856 | 
 
 | 
 
 4,294,321 | 
 
 19.16 
 
 1 
 
 162,066 
 
 3.77 
 
 5 452.446 | 
 
 100. | 
 
 5,281,823 | 
 
 27,872,154 | 
 
 18.95 j 
 
 943,219 
 
 3.38 
 
 1 
 
 5,298.705 | 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 $92,439,297 | $407,961,596 | 
 
 1 1 
 
 22.66 | 
 
 1 
 
 $21,356,860 | 
 
 ! 
 
 5.24 
 
 i 0 „ t ^± 0nds +< than t 0 th ? stocks, and the decline has chiefly taken place in the 
 
 teen^eadhi^ ^STr^° n <' ShOWS /i t t at ^ t t? d ^ c I ine in the aggregate value of the four- 
 4°5n r oa ? s (covered by table 1) from April to September. 1903, has been only 
 of aSeLSSiint A1 I„ tax i? 1 f . la ws contemplate the assessment of the true value at the date 
 assS^mpJ^ in ^ V n 1 u e t her ® a fter if it continues until the time of the next 
 
 hf S fhat°asses^nent 6F thlS fal1 bG ln llVe stock ’ real estate or railroads, will be reflected 
 
be far greater in Ohio, as these increase rapidly with the size of cities. Yet 
 the 6,349.65 miles of line in Indiana were assessed in 1902, the latest year for 
 which returns are at hand, for $162,797,798, or $24,475 per mile, while the 8,884.6 
 miles in Ohio are only assessed for $129,062,974, or $14,527 per mile. Even the 
 Indiana assessment is not half the value of the roads. 
 
 Thanks to the recent increase of the excise tax in Ohio and the low rate of 
 tax on assessments in Indiana, the total taxes paid per mile of road in 1903 
 will be about the same in the two states, but for the reasons given above should 
 be much higher in Ohio. The somewhat lower tax rate of Indiana is no defense 
 for the ridiculously low assessments in Ohio, so much below those on farms 
 and homes. The constitutions and laws of both states equally require that the 
 assessment shall be the true value in money of the roads, and no one claims that 
 this value is anywhere near approached even by the Indiana assessment. 
 
 In the following diagram the length of each odd line represents the assess¬ 
 ment per mile of the road named in Ohio in 1903, and the length of the even 
 line below it represents the relatively larger assessment of the same road just 
 across the boundary in Indiana: 
 
 ASSESSMENT PER MI LE. 
 
 OHIO AND INDIANA. 
 
 Ohio.$15,296 B. & O. Chicago Division. 
 
 Indiana. 27,325 
 
 Ohio.12,731 B. & O. Southwestern. 
 
 Indiana. 27,917 
 
 Ohio. 11,000 Chicago & Erie. 
 
 Indiana. 27,369 
 
 Ohio. 11,065 Cincinnati, Hamilton & Indianapolis. 
 
 Indiana. 29,498 
 
 Ohio. 12,880 Big Four. 
 
 Indiana. 34,394 
 
 Ohio.. 4,050 Findlay, Ft. Wayne & Western. 
 
 Indiana. 9,085 
 
 Ohio. 9,445 Lake Erie & Western. 
 
 Indiana. 19;513 
 
 Ohio. 32,023 Lake Shore. 
 
 Indiana. 63,500 
 
Ohio. 14,128 New York, Chicago & St. Louis. 
 
 Indiana. 34,756 
 
 Ohio. 33,961 Pitts., Cin., Chicago & St. Louis. 
 
 Indiana. 34,796 
 
 Ohio. 50,206 Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago. 
 
 Indiana. 73,076 
 
 Ohio. 8,228 Toledo, St. Louis & Western. 
 
 Indiana. 15,992 
 
 Ohio. 12,022 Wabash. 
 
 Indiana. 30,349 
 
 It will be observed that with the exception of the Pennsylvania lines, known 
 as the Fort Wayne and P. C. C. & St. L., the assessment in Indiana in almost 
 every case is over twice as large as in Ohio, although these roads run through 
 fewer large cities in the more western state and have fewer miles of second 
 and side track per 100 miles of main line than in Ohio. Since the average In¬ 
 diana railroad tax rate on the assessment is 59 per cent, as high as in Ohio, even 
 after including our state excise tax, most of these roads pay a much larger tax 
 per mile and in proportion to gross or net earnings in Indiana than in Ohio. 
 
 LESSONS FROM MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTI¬ 
 CUT AND MICHIGAN. 
 
 In Massachusetts the railroads are taxed an amount equal in 1902 to 
 5.82 per cent, of their gross income and 19.51 per cent, of their net income, 
 while the Ohio roads, even with the new excise tax, will only pay this year about 
 3.6 per cent, of their gross receipts and 11.2 per cent, of their net. In Massa¬ 
 chusetts the state tax commissioner, appointed by the governor, determines 
 the market value on May 1st of all the stocks (but unfortunately not the 
 bonds) of all the roads, deducts therefrom the local assessment on machine 
 shops, buildings and real estate other than roadbed, and to the large re¬ 
 mainder applies the average tax rate of all taxing bodies. This is determined 
 by dividing the total assessment of all property by the total taxes raised 
 thereon by direct tax. This law, so far as relates to the features just de¬ 
 scribed, is vastly better than the Ohio method, but, as intimated, fails woe¬ 
 fully in neglecting to include the bonded capital. 
 
 Connecticut in this respect is better, because of the requirements of the full 
 assessment by a state board of all the securities, stocks, bonds and floating debts 
 of a road at their market value, but is inferior to the Massachusetts law in that 
 the tax is fixed at only one per cent, of this value or only about 2-3 of the usual 
 Massachusetts rate. 
 
 The new Michigan tax law of 1901 requires the state board of tax commis¬ 
 sioners to arrive at the cash value of the railroads and to assess them at the 
 average rate of all other property. Accordingly, early in 1903 this board, after 
 a careful study of the physical values and a very low appraisal of the intangible 
 values, assessed the roads at $198,641,000 and imposed taxes thereon of 1.3689 
 per cent., or $2,719,206.59. This is nearly double the taxes of 1902, and amounts 
 to 6.37 per cent, of the gross income and 30.59 per cent, of the net income of 
 1902. The Ohio roads, even with the new excise tax, will pay in 1903 less than 
 
60 per cent, as large a percentage of their gross revenue and less than 40 per 
 cent, as large a proportion of their net revenue. 
 
 THE WAY OUT. 
 
 The experience of the past two years has conclusively proved that the county 
 auditors and the state board will not obey the constitution. By the evidence of 
 eye witnesses, and by their own confession, it appears that these auditors not 
 only ride all the year on the passes of the roads they assess, but are given 
 excursions to distant places outside of the state at the expense of these roads. 
 Even when assembled for the annual assessment of the roads, these auditors are 
 often entertained throughout the day and night at the expense of the very roads 
 they have come to assess. To nominate and elect 88 auditors of the right stamp 
 and to keep them up to their duty after election in the face of such enormous 
 influence is out of the question. It is necessary to follow the example of the 
 increasing number of states that are placing the entire assessment of railroads,, 
 as Ohio has of express, telegraph and telephone companies, in the hands of a state 
 authority. The law should be more explicit than now in prescribing how the 
 constitutional provision of “true money value” shall be obeyed. Full regard 
 should be paid to the average market value of the securities for the twelve months 
 preceding the assessment and to the gross and net earnings, to the physical prop¬ 
 erty and to any other elements that enter into the value of a road. 
 
 In order to concentrate responsibility, the assessment should be in the hands 
 of a single official appointed, as in Massachusetts, by the governor, and empowered 
 to employ necessary assistants. All the states that have made much progress 
 in the imposition of proper taxes upon railroads, such as Massachusetts, Con¬ 
 necticut, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin, have moved in the direction of the 
 concentration of the assessment and taxation of railroads in a central state 
 authority. Of course, this is not inconsistent with the subsequent distribution 
 of the assessment, or taxes raised, among the counties and their subdivisions in 
 accordance with mileage as now in Ohio. But along this line of state assessment 
 we must work, if any great improvement in railroad taxation is to be secured. 
 
 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FOLLOWING THREE IM¬ 
 PORTANT TABLES. 
 
 Table II shows by what amount the assessed value 1 of each railroad must 
 be multiplied to get even 60 per cent, of the true value of the road. It will be 
 observed that the assessment in most cases must be multiplied by 2 or 3 or 4 
 and a decimal to get the true value, although in some cases even a larger multi¬ 
 plier is necessary, and in a very few cases a smaller one. 
 
 Table III shows what each county now loses in taxes as compared with what 
 it would receive if the roads were assessed at 60 per cent, of their true value. 
 The average loss in each of the 88 counties is over $50,000, but varies from $1,400 
 in Monroe county to $312,069 in Cuyahoga county. 
 
 Table IV is equally significant and should interest every taxpayer. It shows 
 the percentage by which every person’s taxes would be reduced if the railroads 
 of his county paid taxes on an assessment of 60 per cent, of their true value. 
 This table shows that the taxpayer in many of the rural counties would gain far 
 more in the percentage of reduction of his own taxes than in the richer 
 counties where the railroads are a smaller proportion of the entire value of all 
 property. The taxpayer would find his taxes reduced by 64 per cent., or nearly 
 two-thirds, in Vinton county, 39 per cent, in Ottawa county, 33 per cent, in 
 Athens, 29 per cent, in Ashtabula and Trumbull counties, 28 in Hocking, Portage 
 and Van Wert counties, 27 in Jackson, 24 in Huron, almost 23 in Harrison, 21 
 in Erie, Fulton and Wayne, 20 in Crawford, Pike and Putnam, 19 in Henry and 
 Paulding, 18 in Ross and Williams, 17 in Allen, Harrison, Lake. Medina. Tus¬ 
 carawas and Wyandot, 16 in Richland and Wood, 15 in Belmont, Lorain, Marion, 
 Perry, Sandusky, Scioto and Seneca, 14 in Columbiana, Defiance, Guernsey, 
 Licking and Mahoning and smaller percentages in the other counties. 
 
 In only 21 of the 88 counties would the taxpayer gain less than 8 per cent. 
 The average rate of gain in all the counties, which can be found by dividing the 
 sum of the rates by 88, equals 14.2 per cent. If, however, the total gain of 
 $4,484,416 to the individual taxpayers by the assessment of the railroads at 60 
 per cent, of their true value be equally distributed over all the taxes levied in 
 1902 for all purposes—state, county and local—except special taxes, the average 
 reduction in taxes on other property would be 10.23 per cent. 
 
TABLE II. 
 
 Table showing the multiplier which must be used to bring the assessed value 
 of each railroad up to 60 per cent, of its true value: 
 
 Name of Railroad. 
 
 Multiplier. 
 
 Akron & Barberton Belt. 
 
 Addyston & Ohio River. 
 
 Ann Arbor . 
 
 Ashland & Wooster. 
 
 Baltimore & Ohio—Akron Division. 
 
 Central Ohio Division. 
 
 Chicago Division . 
 
 Midland Division .... 
 Lake Erie Division ... 
 Southwestern Division 
 Straitsville Division . . 
 St. Clairsville Division 
 Eastern Ohio Branch.. 
 Parkersburg Branch . . 
 
 Bay Terminal . 
 
 Bessemer & Lake Erie. 
 
 Bowling Green . 
 
 Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis. 
 
 Cincinnati, Sandusky & Cleveland. 
 
 Cincinnati & Springfield.. 
 
 Columbus, Springfield & Cincinnati . 
 
 Central Union Depot & Railway Co. 
 
 Chicago & Erie . 
 
 Cincinnati 
 Cincinnat 
 Cincinnat 
 Cincinnat 
 Cincinnat 
 Cincinnat 
 Cincinnat 
 Cincinnat 
 Cincinnat 
 Cincinnat 
 Cincinnat 
 Cleveland 
 Cleveland 
 
 & Dayton . 
 
 Hamilton & Dayton. 
 
 Indianapolis & Western. 
 
 Georgetown & Portsmouth. .. . 
 
 & Muskingum Valley. 
 
 Lebanon & Northern. 
 
 Northern . 
 
 , New Orleans & Texas Pacific. 
 
 & Northwestern. 
 
 & Milford . 
 
 & Westwood. 
 
 Akron & Columbus . 
 
 Lorain & Wheeling. 
 
 Cleveland & Mahoning Valley. 
 
 Cleveland & Marietta. 
 
 Cleveland & Pittsburg . 
 
 Cleveland, Terminal & Valley. 
 
 Cleveland, Wooster & Muskingum Valley 
 
 Columbus & Southern. 
 
 Columbus, Findlay & Northern . 
 
 Columbus & Lake Michigan. 
 
 Columbus & Maysville . 
 
 Dayton, Lebanon & Cincinnati . 
 
 Dayton & Michigan. 
 
 Dayton Union .. 
 
 Dayton & Union. 
 
 Detroit Southern .. 
 
 Detroit, Toledo & Milwaukee. 
 
 Detroit & Toledo Shore Line . 
 
 Findlay Belt. 
 
 Findlay, Ft. Wayne & Western . 
 
 Hamilton Belt . 
 
 Harrison Branch . 
 
 2.65 
 
 2.65 
 
 .89 
 
 3.34 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.43 
 
 10.63 
 
 2.65 
 
 3.45 
 
 2.45 
 2.45 
 2.45 
 
 2.45 
 2.65 
 3.86 
 
 3.45 
 3.45 
 3.45 
 5.29 
 1.23 
 2.28 
 2.65 
 2.65 
 2.65 
 2.65 
 
 2.65 
 
 2.11 
 
 4.72 
 
 3.66 
 1.82 
 
 2.78 
 
 6.66 
 4.43 
 2.65 
 3.45 
 2.65 
 1.63 
 2.65 
 
 3.45 
 2.65 
 
 1.79 
 
 2.73 
 2.65 
 2.65 
 
 2.45 
 2.65 
 
 3.45 
 
 2.45 
 
Name oe 
 
 Railroad. 
 
 Multiplier. 
 
 Home Ave. 
 
 Hocking Valley. 
 
 Iron . 
 
 Ivorydale & Mill Creek Valley .. 
 
 Kanawha & Michigan . 
 
 Lake Erie, Alliance & Wheeling. 
 
 Lakeside & Marblehead . 
 
 Lake Shore & Michigan Southern. 
 
 Lake Erie & Western..r 
 
 Mahoning Coal. 
 
 Manufacturers ..,. 
 
 Mahoning State Line . 
 
 Marietta, Columbus & Cleveland. 
 
 Massillon & Cleveland . 
 
 Mt. Gilead Short Line. 
 
 Norfolk & Western . 
 
 Norfolk & Western—Cincinnati Branch . 
 
 Northern Ohio. 
 
 New York, Chicago & St. Louis..: 
 
 New York, Pennsylvania & Ohio . 
 
 Ohio & Little Kanawha. 
 
 Ohio River & Western.. 
 
 Ohio White Sandstone. 
 
 Peoria & Eastern . 
 
 Pere Marquette.. 
 
 Piqua & Troy Branch ....... 
 
 Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis..- 
 
 do Little Miami. 
 
 do Front St. connecting. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago . 
 
 Pittsburgh, Cleveland & Toledo.. 
 
 Pittsburgh & Lake Erie. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Painesville & Fairport . 
 
 Pittsburgh, Ohio Valley & Cincinnati.I 
 
 Pittsburgh, Lisbon & Western . 
 
 Pittsburgh, Youngstown & Ashtabula. 
 
 Rolling Mill . 
 
 Swan Creek .. 
 
 St. Clairsville & Northern . 
 
 Toledo Belt...*.. 
 
 Toledo, Canada Southern & Detroit. 
 
 Toledo & Ohio Central. 
 
 Toledo & Ohio Central—St. Mary’s Branch. 
 
 Toledo & Southeastern. 
 
 Toledo, St. Louis & Western . 
 
 Toledo Railway & Terminal . 
 
 Toledo, Walhonding Valley & Ohio. 
 
 Toledo, Walhonding Valley & Ohio—Sandusky Branch.| 
 
 Toledo, Angola & Western .I 
 
 Trumbull & Mahoning .! 
 
 Wabash .j 
 
 Wellston & Jackson Belt. 
 
 Wheeling & Lake Erie . 
 
 Wheeling Terminal . 
 
 Zanesville & Western. 
 
 3.45 
 2.85 
 2.60 
 5.36 
 2.85 
 2.65 
 
 11.84 
 
 2.65 
 
 2.76 
 
 2.65 
 
 2.65 
 
 1.82 
 
 2.65 
 2.52 
 
 2.45 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.45 
 2.76 
 3.33 
 
 3.66 
 
 1.95 
 4.04 
 2.65 
 
 2.45 
 2.65 
 
 3.45 
 1.75 
 1.75 
 1.75 
 2.52 
 
 5.96 
 1.82 
 2.74 
 2.65 
 2.79 
 4.21 
 1.98 
 2.65 
 2.65 
 3.17 
 
 6.97 
 2.85 
 2.85 
 2.65 
 3.13 
 2.65 
 
 1.98 
 1.98 
 2.65 
 2.65 
 
 1.67 
 2.85 
 3.17 
 2.65 
 2.85 
 
TABLE III 
 
 WHAT EACH COUNTY NOW LOSES. 
 
 Taxes Payable if Amount 
 
 COUNTIES Taxes for Roads were assess- which the 
 
 
 1002 
 
 ed at 60% 
 
 of true 
 
 Counties 
 
 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Lose. 
 
 
 1—Adams. 
 
 .$ 2,150 
 
 98 
 
 $ 9,571 
 
 86 
 
 $ 7,420 
 
 88 
 
 2—Allen . 
 
 . 45,656 
 
 03 
 
 132,899 
 
 89 
 
 87,243 
 
 86 
 
 3—Ashland . 
 
 . 15,637 
 
 88 
 
 47,906 
 
 96 
 
 32,269 
 
 08 
 
 4—Ashtabula .. 
 
 . 62,876 
 
 99 
 
 193,299 
 
 17 
 
 130,422 
 
 18' 
 
 5—Athens . 
 
 . 36,023 
 
 15 
 
 123,578 
 
 09 
 
 87,554 
 
 94 
 
 6—Auglaize. 
 
 . 9,448 
 
 41 
 
 27,928 
 
 44 
 
 18,480 
 
 03 
 
 7—Belmont. 
 
 . 26,463 
 
 15 
 
 101,147 
 
 33 
 
 74,684 
 
 18 
 
 8—Brown. 
 
 . 1,727 
 
 37 
 
 7,840 
 
 09 
 
 6,112 
 
 72 
 
 9—Butler .. 
 
 . 24,699 
 
 71 
 
 68,922 
 
 35 
 
 44,222 
 
 64 
 
 10—Carroll .. 
 
 . 8,498 
 
 15 
 
 25,152 
 
 03 
 
 16,653 
 
 88 
 
 11—Champaign . 
 
 . 21,861 
 
 25 
 
 50,998 
 
 82 
 
 29,137 
 
 57 
 
 12—Clark . 
 
 . 19,468 
 
 16 
 
 49,197 
 
 48 
 
 29,729 
 
 32 
 
 13—Clermont. 
 
 . 5,006 
 
 73 
 
 17,543 
 
 86 
 
 12,537 
 
 13 
 
 14—Clinton . 
 
 . 11,747 
 
 17 
 
 42,337 
 
 57 
 
 30,590 
 
 40 
 
 15—Columbiana. 
 
 . 49,180 
 
 42 
 
 133,910 
 
 20 
 
 84,729 
 
 78 
 
 16—Coshocton . 
 
 . 29,314 
 
 33 
 
 59,469 
 
 09 
 
 30,154 
 
 76 
 
 17—Crawford . , 
 
 . 38,544 
 
 66 
 
 102,397 
 
 07 
 
 63,852 
 
 41 
 
 18—Cuyahoga. 
 
 . 126,625 
 
 15 
 
 438,695 
 
 11 
 
 312,069 
 
 96 
 
 19—Darke . 
 
 . 28,414 
 
 24 
 
 58,611 
 
 14 
 
 30,196 
 
 90 
 
 20—Defiance. 
 
 . 14,391 
 
 08 
 
 49,467 
 
 92 
 
 35,076 
 
 84 
 
 21—Delaware. 
 
 . 18,732 
 
 20 
 
 46,810 
 
 47 
 
 28,078 
 
 27 
 
 22—Erie . 
 
 . 39,553 
 
 09 
 
 116,690 
 
 82 
 
 77,137 
 
 73 
 
 23—Fairfield. 
 
 . 16,302 
 
 70 
 
 40,972 
 
 00 
 
 24,669 
 
 30 
 
 24—Fayette . 
 
 . 8,903 
 
 06 
 
 25,707 
 
 82 
 
 16,804 
 
 76 
 
 25—Franklin. 
 
 . 57,681 
 
 23 
 
 148,380 
 
 46 
 
 90,699 
 
 23 
 
 26—Fulton. 
 
 . 30,402 
 
 11 
 
 76,043 
 
 82 
 
 45,641 
 
 71 
 
 27—Gallia . 
 
 . 11,481 
 
 48 
 
 33,661 
 
 98 
 
 22,180 
 
 50 
 
 28—Geauga . 
 
 . 4,736 
 
 95 
 
 12,911 
 
 92 
 
 8,174 
 
 97 
 
 29—Greene . 
 
 . 18,031 
 
 58 
 
 40,294 
 
 79 
 
 22,263 
 
 21 
 
 30—Guernsey . .. ;. 
 
 . 14,348 
 
 44 
 
 48,566 
 
 09 
 
 34,217 
 
 65 
 
 31—Hamilton . 
 
 . 101,427 
 
 ,65 
 
 292,052 
 
 81 
 
 190,625 
 
 16 
 
 32—Hancock. 
 
 . 22,436 
 
 50 
 
 68,044 
 
 60 
 
 45,608 
 
 10 
 
 33—Hardin . 
 
 . 36,571 
 
 14 
 
 99,975 
 
 17 . 
 
 63,404 
 
 03 
 
 34—Harrison . 
 
 . 24,857 
 
 06 
 
 58,786 
 
 27 
 
 33,929 
 
 21 
 
 35—Henry . 
 
 . 20,476 
 
 13 
 
 62,861 
 
 57 
 
 42,385 
 
 44 
 
 36—Highland . 
 
 . 5,643 
 
 76 
 
 23,841 
 
 67 
 
 18,197 
 
 91 
 
 37—Hocking . 
 
 . 19,226 
 
 ,71 
 
 54,770 
 
 70 
 
 35,543 
 
 99 
 
 38—Holmes . 
 
 . 11,044 
 
 08 
 
 26,212 
 
 41 
 
 15,168 
 
 33 
 
 39—Huron . 
 
 . 37,228 
 
 85 
 
 119,633 
 
 69 
 
 82,404 
 
 84 
 
 40—Jackson . 
 
 . 22,526 
 
 74 
 
 80,773 
 
 49 
 
 58,246 
 
 75 
 
 41—Jefferson . 
 
 . 39,519 
 
 79 
 
 98,588 
 
 58 
 
 59,068 
 
 79 
 
 42—Knox. 
 
 . 13,263 
 
 81 
 
 38,490 
 
 20 
 
 25,226 
 
 39 
 
 43—Lake . 
 
 . 25,083 
 
 63 
 
 70,697 
 
 81 
 
 45,614 
 
 18 
 
 44—Lawrence . 
 
 . 8,452 
 
 84 
 
 31,996 
 
 51 
 
 23,543 
 
 67 
 
 45—Licking. 
 
 . 34,650 
 
 35 
 
 103,435 
 
 31 
 
 68,784 
 
 96 
 
 46—Logan. 
 
 . 18,094 
 
 15 
 
 46,022 
 
 44 
 
 27,928 
 
 29 
 
 47—Loirain . 
 
 . 42,320 
 
 04 
 
 128,437 
 
 90 
 
 86,117 
 
 86 
 
 48—Lucas . 
 
 . 78,418 
 
 32 
 
 230,229 
 
 78 
 
 151,811 
 
 46 
 
 49—Madison . 
 
 . 12.319 
 
 ',85 
 
 25,548 
 
 70 
 
 13,228 
 
 85 
 
 50—Mahoning . 
 
 . 50,734 
 
 75 
 
 168,185 
 
 88 
 
 117,451 
 
 13 
 
 51—Marion . 
 
 . 26,866 
 
 81 
 
 80,725 
 
 73 
 
 53,858 
 
 92 
 
 52—Medina . 
 
 . 12,224 
 
 37 
 
 48,422 
 
 30 
 
 36,197 
 
 93 
 
 53—Meigs. 
 
 . 5,478 
 
 52 
 
 15,613 
 
 78 
 
 10,135 
 
 26 
 
 54—Mercer . 
 
 . 10,055 
 
 73 
 
 29,598 
 
 33 
 
 19,542 
 
 60 
 
 55—Miami . 
 
 . 20,664 
 
 36 
 
 48,780 
 
 09 
 
 28,115 
 
 73 
 
 56—Monroe. 
 
 . 460 
 
 77 
 
 1,861 
 
 51 
 
 1,400 
 
 74 
 

 Taxes 
 
 for 
 
 Taxes Payable if 
 
 Amount 
 
 COUNTIES 
 
 Roads were assess¬ 
 
 ■ which the 
 
 1902 
 
 
 ed at 60 % of true 
 
 Coonties 
 
 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 Lose 
 
 
 57—Montgomery. 
 
 28,575 
 
 38 
 
 77,479 66 
 
 48,904 
 
 28 
 
 58—Morgan . 
 
 2,880 
 
 35 
 
 6,384 46 
 
 3,504 
 
 11 
 
 59—Morrow .. 
 
 9,187 
 
 98 
 
 24,352 63 
 
 15,164 
 
 65 
 
 60—Muskingum. 
 
 24,205 
 
 50 
 
 66,637 59 
 
 42,432 
 
 09 
 
 61—Noble.. 
 
 3,230 
 
 66 
 
 7,167 22 
 
 3,936 
 
 56 
 
 62—Ottawa . 
 
 42,418 
 
 28 
 
 125,103 71 
 
 82,685 
 
 43 
 
 63—Paulding. 
 
 24,300 
 
 10 
 
 65,515 16 
 
 41,215 
 
 06 
 
 64—Perry. 
 
 17,081 
 
 56 
 
 47,850 86 
 
 30,769 
 
 30 
 
 65—Pickaway . 
 
 7,716 
 
 15 
 
 24,886 07 
 
 17,169 
 
 92 
 
 66 —Pike . 
 
 6,210 
 
 44 
 
 * 23,631 65 
 
 17,421 
 
 21 
 
 67—Portage . 
 
 30,074 
 
 10 
 
 108,848 97 
 
 78,774 
 
 87 
 
 68 —Preble . 
 
 14,799 
 
 23 
 
 27,176 43 
 
 12,377 
 
 20 
 
 69—Putnam. 
 
 25,348 
 
 52 
 
 79,637 65 
 
 54,289 
 
 13 
 
 70—Richland . 
 
 ... 39,010 
 
 50 
 
 120,224 87 
 
 81,214 
 
 37 
 
 71—Ross . 
 
 21,245 
 
 77 
 
 83,596 38 
 
 62,350 
 
 61 
 
 72—Sandusky . 
 
 33,344 
 
 02 
 
 88,826 12 
 
 55,482 
 
 10 
 
 73—Scioto . 
 
 12,258 
 
 20 
 
 54,480 91 
 
 42,222 
 
 71 
 
 74—Seneca. 
 
 33,308 
 
 73 
 
 103,196 72 
 
 69,887 
 
 99 
 
 75—Shelby . 
 
 10,344 
 
 51 
 
 29,785 63 
 
 19,441 
 
 12 
 
 76—Stark . 
 
 58,216 
 
 72 
 
 177,179 00 
 
 118,962 
 
 28 
 
 77—Summit. 
 
 25,696 
 
 76 
 
 101,500 25 
 
 75,803 
 
 49 
 
 78—Trumbull . 
 
 43,689 
 
 47 
 
 162,673 40 
 
 118,983 
 
 93 
 
 79—Tuscarawas . 
 
 43,184 
 
 61 
 
 111,727 96 
 
 68,543 
 
 35 
 
 80—Union . 
 
 19,325 
 
 10 
 
 52,202 14 
 
 32,877 
 
 04 
 
 81—Van Wert . 
 
 45,621 
 
 32 
 
 125,881 52 
 
 80,260 
 
 20 
 
 82—V inton . 
 
 14,646 
 
 54 
 
 52,200 08 
 
 37,553 
 
 54 
 
 j83—Warren. 
 
 17,874 
 
 84 
 
 41,070 58 
 
 23,195 
 
 74 
 
 84—Washington. 
 
 10,672 
 
 70 
 
 32,021 75 
 
 21,349 
 
 05 
 
 85—Wayne . 
 
 33,444 
 
 89 
 
 97,102 99 
 
 63,658 
 
 10 
 
 86—Williams . 
 
 30,803 
 
 35 
 
 72,442 68 
 
 41,639 
 
 33 
 
 87—Wood . 
 
 44,102 
 
 48 
 
 138,409 80 
 
 94,307 
 
 32 
 
 88—Wyandotte. 
 
 25,442 
 
 58 
 
 66,935 28 
 
 41,492 
 
 70 
 
 Total . 
 
 . ..$2,296,215 
 
 90 
 
 $6,780,631 99 
 
 $4,484,4X6 
 
 09 
 
TABLE IV. 
 
 The percentage, applied to each person’s tax bill in the several counties, 
 which will show the amount his taxes would be reduced if the Railroads in 
 his county paid taxes on an assessment of 60 per cent, of true value and 
 such appraisal continued to be distributed among the counties on a mileage 
 basis as at present. 
 
 Total tax levied in Amount which Percent- 
 1902 for all purpos- Counties now age of loss 
 COUNTIES es, State, County, lose on a basis to total tax 
 
 * and local, except of a 60 % assess- levy in 
 special taxes. ment of true county. 
 
 Value. 
 
 1—Adams . 
 
 
 $ 7,420 88 
 
 5.67 
 
 2—Allen . 
 
 . 512,547 31 
 
 87,243 86 
 
 17.02 
 
 3—Ashland . 
 
 . 214,004 77 
 
 32,269 08 
 
 15.07 
 
 4—Ashtabula. 
 
 . 446,549 19 
 
 130,422 18 
 
 29.20 
 
 5—Athens . 
 
 . • 260,099 85 
 
 87,554 94 
 
 33.66 
 
 6—Auglaize . 
 
 . 277.827 57 
 
 18,480 03 
 
 6.65 
 
 7—Belmont. 
 
 . 468,297 60 
 
 74,684 18 
 
 15.94 
 
 8—Brown . 
 
 197,741 91 
 
 6,112 72 
 
 3.09 
 
 9—Butler . 
 
 706,846 38 
 
 44,222 64 
 
 6.25 
 
 10—Carroll . 
 
 . 122,446 53 
 
 16,653 88 
 
 13.60 
 
 11—Champaign . 
 
 . 295,990 98 
 
 29,137 57 
 
 9.84 
 
 12—Clark . 
 
 . 614,693 36 
 
 29,729 32 
 
 4.84 
 
 13—Clermont . 
 
 . 222,919 19 
 
 12,537 13 
 
 5.62 
 
 14—Clinton . 
 
 241,841 50 
 
 30,590 40 
 
 12.65 
 
 15—Columbiana . 
 
 . 590,517 79 
 
 84,729 78 
 
 14.35 
 
 16—Coshocton . 
 
 . 259,276 98 
 
 30,154 76 
 
 11.63 
 
 17—Crawford . 
 
 . 318,921 89 ■ 
 
 63,852 41 
 
 20.02 
 
 18—Cuyahoga . 
 
 . 6.590,667 94 
 
 312,069 96 
 
 4.74 
 
 19—Darke . 
 
 . 398,234 10 
 
 30,196 90 
 
 7.58 
 
 20—Defiance. 
 
 . 239,263 99 
 
 35,076 84 
 
 14.66 
 
 21—Delaware . 
 
 . 266,472 98 
 
 28,078 27 
 
 10.54 
 
 22—Erie .. 
 
 . 367,343 23 
 
 77,137 73 
 
 21.00 
 
 23—Fairfield . 
 
 . 286,191 78 
 
 24,669 30 
 
 8.62 
 
 24—Fayette . 
 
 . 216,903 40 
 
 16,804 76 
 
 7.75 
 
 25—Franklin. 
 
 . 2,207,460 85 
 
 90,699 23 
 
 4.11 
 
 26—Fulton . 
 
 . 211,603 91 
 
 45,641 71 
 
 21.57 
 
 27—Gallia . 
 
 . 171,838 48 
 
 22,180 50 
 
 12.90 
 
 28—Geauga . 
 
 . 117,693 15 
 
 8,174 97 
 
 6.94 
 
 29—Greene 1 . 
 
 . 347,059 51 
 
 22,263 21 
 
 6.41 
 
 30—Guernsey . 
 
 . 242,499 50 
 
 34,217 65 
 
 14.11 
 
 31—Hamilton . 
 
 .. 5,285,372 73 
 
 190,625 16 
 
 3.61 
 
 32—Hancock . 
 
 . 401,261 21 
 
 45,608 10 
 
 11.37 
 
 33—Hardin . 
 
 . 275,868 58 
 
 63,404 03 
 
 22.98 
 
 34—Harrison . 
 
 . 197,391 97 
 
 33,929 21 
 
 17.19 
 
 35—Henry . 
 
 . 218,662 13 
 
 42,385 44 
 
 19.38 
 
 36—Highland . 
 
 . 250,740 13 
 
 18,197 91 
 
 7.26 
 
 37—Hocking . 
 
 . 125,040 35 
 
 35,543 99 
 
 28.42 
 
 38—Holmes . 
 
 . 130.671 00 
 
 15,168 33 
 
 11.61 
 
 39—Huron . 
 
 . 334,119 53 
 
 82,404 84 
 
 24.66 
 
 40—Jackson . 
 
 . 214,048 94 
 
 58,246 75 
 
 27.21 
 
 41—Jefferson . 
 
 . 434,907 91 
 
 59,068 79 
 
 13.58 
 
 42—Knox. 
 
 . 275,375 50 
 
 25,226 39 
 
 9.16 
 
 43—Lake . 
 
 . 262,790 89 
 
 45,614 18 
 
 17.36 
 
 44—Lawrence . 
 
 . 202,115 25 
 
 23.543 67 
 
 11.65 
 
 45—Licking. 
 
 . 478,168 23 
 
 68,784 96 
 
 14.38 
 
 46—Logan .. 
 
 . 292,999 72 
 
 27,928 29 
 
 9.53 
 
 47—Lorain. 
 
 . 543,369 90 
 
 86,117 86 
 
 15.85 
 
 48—Lucas . 
 
 . 2.063,958 61 
 
 151,811 46 
 
 7.36 
 
 49—Madison . 
 
 .258,268 59 
 
 13,228 85 
 
 5.12 
 
 5-0—Mahoning . 
 
 . 810.926 82 
 
 117.451 13 
 
 14.48 
 

 Total tax levied in 
 
 Amount which 
 
 Percent¬ 
 
 COUNTIES 
 
 1902 for all purposes, 
 
 Counties now 
 
 age of loss 
 
 State, County and 
 
 lose on a basis 
 
 to total tax 
 
 
 local, except 
 
 of a 6 o% assess¬ 
 
 - levy in 
 
 special taxes. 
 
 ment of true 
 
 'county. 
 
 
 
 Value. 
 
 51—Marion . 
 
 . 357,021 65 
 
 53,858 92 
 
 15.09 
 
 52—Medina . 
 
 . 206,187 86 
 
 36,197 93 
 
 17.55 
 
 53—Meigs . 
 
 . 164,876 36 
 
 10,135 26 
 
 6.15 
 
 54—Mercer . 
 
 . 218,861 16 
 
 19,542 60 
 
 8.93 
 
 55—Miami . 
 
 476,908 97 
 
 28,115 73 
 
 5.90 
 
 56—Monroe . 
 
 . 122,614 87 
 
 1,400 74 
 
 1.14 
 
 57—Montgomery. 
 
 . 1,602,677 03 
 
 48,904 28 
 
 3.05 
 
 58—Morgan . 
 
 . 169,371 04 
 
 3,504 11 
 
 2.07 
 
 59—Morrow . 
 
 . 139,393 71 
 
 15,164 65 
 
 10.88 
 
 60—Muskingum . 
 
 . 491,265 14 
 
 42,432 09 
 
 8.64 
 
 61—Noble. 
 
 . 116,834 08 
 
 3,936 56 
 
 3.37 
 
 62—Ottawa . 
 
 . 210,421 87 
 
 82,685 43 
 
 39.30 
 
 63—Paulding . 
 
 . 214,442 64 
 
 41,215 06 
 
 19.22 
 
 64—Perry. 
 
 . 204,592 91 
 
 30,769 30 
 
 15.04 
 
 65—Pickaway . 
 
 . 299,781 75 
 
 17,169 92 
 
 5.73 
 
 66 —Pike . 
 
 . 85,890 88 
 
 17,421 21 
 
 20.28 
 
 67—Portage . 
 
 . 272,426 59 
 
 78,774 87 
 
 28.92 
 
 68 —Preble . 
 
 . 266,787 61 
 
 12,377 20 
 
 4.64 
 
 69—Putnam . 
 
 . 270,543 75 
 
 54,289 13 
 
 20.07 
 
 70—Richland . 
 
 . 497,686 54 
 
 81,214 37 
 
 16.32 
 
 71—Ross. 
 
 . 332,652 04 
 
 62,350 61 
 
 18.74 
 
 72—Sandusky . 
 
 . 353,354 72 
 
 55,482 10 
 
 15.70 
 
 1 3—Scioto . 
 
 . 273,767 27 
 
 42,222 71 
 
 15.42 
 
 74—Seneca . 
 
 . 443,528 31 
 
 69,887 99 
 
 15.75 
 
 75—Shelby. 
 
 . 259,852 31 
 
 19,441 12 
 
 7.48 
 
 76—Stark. 
 
 ....... 955,321 10 
 
 118,962 28 
 
 12.45 
 
 77—Summit. 
 
 . 881.481 61 
 
 75,803 49 
 
 8.60 
 
 78—Trumbull . 
 
 . 400,235 35 
 
 118,983 93 
 
 29.73 
 
 79—Tuscarawas . 
 
 . 390,471 86 
 
 68,543 35 
 
 17.55 
 
 80—Union . 
 
 . 201,101 68 
 
 32,877 04 
 
 16.30 
 
 81—Van Wert . 
 
 . 282,559 51 
 
 80,260 20 
 
 28.40 
 
 82—Vinton . 
 
 . 58,139 94 
 
 37,553 54 
 
 64.59 
 
 83—Warren. 
 
 . 284,281 25 
 
 23,195 74 
 
 8.16 
 
 84—Washington . 
 
 . 377,659 80 
 
 21,349 05 
 
 5.65 
 
 85—Wayne. 
 
 . 298,936 16 
 
 63,658 10 
 
 21.29 
 
 86 —Williams. 
 
 . 221,154 70 
 
 41,639 33 
 
 18.83 
 
 87—Wood . 
 
 . 581,009 18 
 
 94,307 32 
 
 16.23 
 
 88 —Wyandotte . 
 
 . 234,860 16 
 
 41,492 70 
 
 17.66 
 
 Total. 
 
 .$43,819,603 76 
 
 $4,484,416 09 
 
 10.23 
 
 The following authorities have been consulted and used, and the state¬ 
 ments and calculations herein made are based upon date taken therefrom : 
 Poor’s Manual of Railroads. 
 
 The Manual of Statistics, Stock Exchange Hand Book. 
 
 The Commercial and Financial Chronicle and its Bank and Quotation 
 Supplements. 
 
 Reports of the leading Railroads to their Stockholders. 
 
 Reports of the Inter-State Commerce Commission. 
 
 Ohio State Auditor’s Reports. 
 
 Ohio Statistics—Secretary of State’s Reports. 
 
 Ohio Railroad Commissioner’s Reports. 
 
 Michigan Railroad Coommissioner’s Reports. 
 
 Indiana Railroad Commissioner’s Reports. 
 
 Massachusetts Railroad Coommissioner’s Reports. 
 
 Connecticut Railroad Commissioner’s Reports. 
 
 Wisconsin Railroad Coommissioner’s Reports. 
 
 U. S. and State Law Reports.