The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1879-02-13
THE ASSESSMENT LAW.

JUDGE RYAN has delivered very able
opinion reviewing the assessment law of
1878 and declaring it unconstitutional for
several reasons. 1t is impossible to do
full justice to the opinion from a hasty
perusal, though it confines itself very
closely to the provisions OF. the law in
question. Any one who reads the opin-
ion cannot but be convinced of the just
ness of the views of the able Judge, and
it is very fortunate that Judge Ryan
himself delivered the opinion.
The Judge declares the following Sec
tons unconstitutional: Section 2, relating
to affidavits. Section 3, requiring per-
son who seeks to have tax set aside as
unjust, to make tender of taxes justly
due. Section ), which declares that the
re-assessment made by the direction of
the court shall be conclusive and can not
be impeached for injustice or inaccuracy.
The Judge intimates that other sections
may be unconstitutional but that they
need not be considered as the sections
mentioned are fatal to the validity OF the
law.
Section , states that the neglect of the
assessor to make affidavit to the correct.
ness Of his assessment roll, or the neglect
of any tax collector, district clerk or
marshal to perform certain duties which
are mandatory, shall invalidate the assess
ment or the tax. As the law requires
the affidavit of these officers, and does
not simply make the affidavit directory,
the court holds that the omission to
make affidavit destroys the validity of
the assessment and of the tax The law
might be so framed as to dispense with
the affidavit, but while it makes it man
datory the omission of the affidavit is a
fatal defect.
Section 3, provices that in any action
brought to quiet title or to set aside a
tax on account of unjust assessment, the
person bringing the action must make a
tender of the amount justly due and if
after reassessment the taxes as ascertained
be not greater than the tender made the
other party must pay costs. II no tender
be made, the costs are taxed against the
person bringing the action if it be deter
mined that the property IS subject to
taxation. The court holds that person
can only be held liable to pay taxes when
liquidated and levied. As the tax i'm
peached by the person bringing the ac-
ton is supposed to be unjust it furnishes
no basis to him of determining the equit-
able amount of taxes which lie should
pay. No person can be constitutionally
required to make tender in payment of
unliquidater damages, in order to secure
redress.
Section 5, which provides for stay of
proceedings in an action brought to avoid
a tax, until a re-assessment can be made
is pronounced unconstitutional because
1t declares that the re-assessment shall
be conclusive evidence of the justice of
the tax. Ii it were made 11rinaa tucie
evidence no objection could be taken to
the re-assessment. The court declares
that the Legislature has no more power to
make the second assessment conclusive
evidence than it has to make the first
cUnulttoiru, aud that the second ossoes
ment may be VIGOROUSLY unjust and still
the person aggrieved is denied all re-
dress.
The decision brings other sections into
question, which are intimately connected
with those to which we have referred, but
the decision is based principally on the
sections noted. The decision as may be
expected when delivered by Chief Justice
Ryan, is able and convincing. This
matter of assessing, no matter how care
fully guarded by Legislative enactment,
will depend for its justice almost wholly
on the integrity OF the assessor, and pun
ishment for improper performances of
duty is the best safeguard against illegal
assessment. 1t is quite evident to every
one that assessment, even with the in
centive to justice which the Supreme
court gave, is not at all uniform or Just.