man000176 87

November 29, 1954 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr, Leo McNamee FROM: Mr, T. A. Campbell SUBJECT: Settlement of 1954 Taxes This relates to the recent exchange of correspondence between yourself and Mr, E, Eo Bennett, General Solicitor of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, on the above subject, and has particular reference to the following communications, 1, Letter dated November 19, 1954, addressed to the undersigned by Mr, Bennett and marked personal. Copies of this letter have been distrib­uted to Directors, and one is attached hereto, 2, Copy of Mr, Bennett’s November 19 letter addressed to yourself, reference to which was made in his letter of same date to me— item No, 1 above. The above two communications were received by me just prior to my departure from Las Vegas last Sunday morning, November 21, 1954; and I had time to only hastily scan item No, 1, Both letters were left in Las Vegas with directions that they be duplicated and distributed in the regular manner. Although copies were sent to me earlier in the week, I did not have an opportunity to go over this correspondence until today. Meanwhile, before having an opportunity to read and thoroughly digest th® contents of these communications, I had a brief telephone conversation with Mr, Bennett on the subject while I was in Los Angeles last Monday, Now that I have had an opportunity to read and absorb th© contents of the above two letters as well as Mr,; Bennett’s November 8 letter to you on the same subject I am definitely of the personal opinion that there is absolutely no justification for the position taken by Mr, Bennett. Namely, that the District should "go to bat with the Nevada Tax Commission" to the end that the entire year’s taxes be canceled, X am personally unalterably and unequivocally opposed to any such procedure. Frankly, I am very much surprised, to put it very mildly, that Mr, Bennett or any official of the Union Pacific would make such a suggestion. In his letters of November 19, Mr. Bennett states that the District took the property acquired from the Lap Vegas Land and Water Company subject to all taxes levied and assessed on the sal® date, whether paid or unpaid at that time. What he fails to mention, however, is the fact that there is definitely in the contract a provision for the prorating of the taxes as of the sale date. Incidentally, I men­tioned this to him in our telephone conversation; but sine® I had not then had an