Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-07-27
HYArTsvILLE TAX FIGHT.
Decision Of the Court Reserved on the Ap.
plication for Mandamus.

plication for Mandamus.
Special Correspondents of The Evening Star.
MARLBORO, Nd, July &c, 1892.
In the hearing of the Hyattsville single tar
case at Marlboro yesterday before Judge J. B.
Brooke Of the circuit court OF Prince Georges
county after THE Stars report closed Mr.. r.
Ford Comb continued his argument on behalf
of the petitioners.
Mr.. Comb commended that the act of the board
was unconstitutional, because they did not pro-
pose to tax the people of Hysttsville according
to the actual worth Of each citizen The laws
Of the state declared that each citizen of the
state should bear the burden Of taxation equally,
but under the assessment made BY the commits
sioners that was rendered impossible. for the
man who owned land alone was compelled to
pay rs much as the one who owned the same
amount OF land and thousands Of improvements.
The state declaration Of rights declare that
every citizen Of the state shall contribute
TO the support Of the government according to
his actual worth was a. beautiful as it was fair
and just and any act which violated that decla-
ration was unconstitutional, and therefore null
and void. In support Of his contention Mr..
Comb read numerous authorities. state and
national, which he claimed supported the re-
quest OF the petitioners for writ Of mandamus.
THE coMMIssIoNERs' SIDE.
Mr.. l.. II. Leverson followed for the respond
ents with the statement that what he and his
associate would have to say would touch upon
the legal questions Of the case alone and he
apologized for having in their answer gone out
side the legal aspect of the case, having done
so because Of the misstatements contained in
the petition Of the REALTORS. It had been de-
clared by the Maryland court Of appeals that In
the furtherauce Of public policy and the benefit
OF tho community certain property could be
exempted from taxation. That was Just what
had been intended by the majority OF the COM
missioners. In other words they did what they
did that HyattsviMe might prosper, that it
might seek to make two blades Of grass grow
where one had grown before Surely that was
cornmendable. and surely 1t was constitutional.
Mr.. Charles Fl. Stanley followed, also for the
respondents. He claimed there was too much
Of Henry George in the case. That alone seemed
TO be the burden of the arguments on the other
side. But what Henry George thought or
wished were not to be considered by the court
The sole question was, was the act Of the
Commissioners constitutional? He contended
that 1t was, and cited numerous state authori-
ties to show that the exemption made by the
Commissioners was a matter wholly In their
discretion, laying particular stress on the OK
emption made il favor Of manufacturers,
which exemption had been sustained by the state
court Of appeals. He claimed That If the law
under which the Commissioners acted was de-
clared to be unconstitutional, that was the end
OF the matter, for then it would be found that
they could not add improvements. That is, il
the law was unconstitutional in one particular
II was In all others save in the clause repeating
former laws. But the law was constitutional,
the commissioners had been fairly and legally
elected, and they had acted in that discretion
which the law undoubtedly gave them.
Mr.. Marion Duckett, for the petitioners, con-
cluded the arguments, reading from Henry
Georges Progress and Poverty" and claim
ing that the courts decision would be eagerly
awaited by the whole world. II the act Of the
commissioners was sustained the legislature
and courts Of Maryland would be understood
as advocating and assisting the single tax
scheme Mr.. Duckett also briefly discussed the
authorities quoted by counsel for the re-
spondents, contending that they really sustained
the position Of the petitioners.
At the conclusion of the arguments his honor
took the papers, remarking that he would
render his decision at the earliest practicable
moment. 1t is known that whatever may be
Judge Brooke's decision the case will be taken
to the court Of appeals. That court meets in
October. Therefore the case cannot be finally
decided before that time.