The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-05-11
HAS NOT JUDICIAL POWER
Tax Commissioners Cannot Impose
Criminal Penalties Against Any bOdy.
That One Provision Of the Law, at Least, Is
Unconstitutional-Sm Opinion Of the
0pinion-Pleas in Abatement Filed.

The Supreme Court handed down o de-
cision Y esterday in the famous Decker VS..
Langenberg. Sheriff. case. in which Philip
w. Decker. vIce-president of the German
Bank, at Evansville. was fined $500 by the
State Tax Commission for refusing to d.
vulge the amounts credited 10 depositors
in his bank. The decision is to the effect
that the Tax Commission has no authority
over the personal liberty of citizens. and
that. therefore, Judge Taylor. of the
Superior Court did not err In granting the
plaintiff his liberty. The opinion was
written by Judge Coifey, nll the other
judges concurring. Judge Elliott. Chief
justice, wrote an individual opinion
reaching the same conclusion by somewhat
different line of reasoning. The point rela-
tive to the habeas corpus was the only one
decided. for the reason. as expressed at the
close of Judge CofIey's opinion, that all
with which the court has properly to do In
this case is the writ of habeas corpus.
Attorney general Smith had insisted In his
argument that the function of the court in
this case extended no further. and in this
the court agreed with him.
After reclting at length the history or
the case, including much of the record.
Judge COffey says that the whole question
before the court rests upon whether the
authority of the Tax Commission Is only
Quasi-iudicial or purely judicial. The
course OF reasoning leads the court to con-
clude that the act of the commission was
purely judicial, and exceeded the powers
that it was thought were conferred upon
the commission. 1t Is therefore held that
the section In the tax statute which
cOnfers authority to impose fine or lmpris-
onment is void. but the rest of the statute
is not invalldated by this clause.
In Judge Elliott's opinion it Is held that
q citizen cannot be deprived OF his liberty
without due process OF law. If the power
asserted TO exist in the board does really
exist, then boards of assessors and boards
of trustees have the same right TO be In
vested with authority over persons
liberty. and may imprison without limit.
I'm my opinion" said Judge Elliott the
Legislature has no authority to authorize
the Tax Commission to Imprison citizen.
The Legislature cannot confer such
authority upon the Governor or any execu.
tive or administrative officer. The Legis-
lature is denied the power in tho Constltu-
tion to punish for contempt of itself unless
the offense is committed directly against
itself. The authority to punish resides
where the Constitution places it. 1t is
judicial and the Legislature cannot create
judicial power. which, like all sovereign
powers. comes from the people. The Legis-
lature may, however, name tribunals
Constitution. but it has no power to dele
gate this authority"
Judge Elliott then says the State board
is not judicial body. and while it has
powers of q judicial nature. so does every
officer in the land who has to do with ex-
ecutve acts involving his own Judgment
Speaking, in conclusion. of courts and Der
sonal liberty, Judge Elliot proceeds to give
the following eloquent digest OF the prin-
ciples involved:
"In free countries courts always have as
sumed jurisdiction of questions involving
personal liberty, and so they must, else
free government. SECURING personal liberty,
ceases to exist. When that great right
comes in issue the courts hear and decide.
and the authority of executive or admin
istratlve officers is at an end. What
ever else such officers may be empowered
to do, they cannot be empowered to sit IN
| judgment upon the right of a citizen to his
personal liberty. Only the courts can give
| the command which takes from the citizen
| his liberty and places him within prison
walls The board is always minis
terial or administrative, aud hence it goes
| not far enough TO adjudge Imprisonment.
| for il IS beyond the power of the Legisla-
| ture or any administrative board to invest
| 1t with that high judicial authority"
Attorney general Smith was asked for IN
| expression on the decision: The Supreme
| Court" said he. has decided that this par
| ticular power belongs to the courts. Ii
| holds that the commission has the right
| 10 TcuUiEo tEc oflucuCo Wuc oOuShe
] from Decker. but punishment for refusal
to answer the questions must be imposed
| by the courts. The decision sustalns my
| position that the board has quasi Judicial
| powers. 1t ignores the doctrine of unre a
| sonabIe search advanced by Mr.. Harris,
on the ground that the case does not IN
| volve it. All that is needed now is for the
| Legislature to pass a law compelling wit
nesses to answer questions affecting taxa
| BILE property. 1t is also decided that the
| authority to hear evidence belongs to the
board. Under the opinion handed down to-
day the statute is valid. The plant
| ills wanted the Supreme Court "a
| declare the law uncOnstitutiona
| on the grounds taken by Judge
Taylor that judicial powers had been con-
| ferred upon the Governor and other execu.
| tive officers. The court decides against
| them. except as to the one section. They
also wanted decision as to original juris.
| diction of the commission, but the court
passed the point over. In regard to Mr.
Buffers point that the commission could
| not be a court, because the Governor Is q
member. the decision says the Supreme
| Court adopted the contention of the Attor
| Dey- general that the commission Is not Q
court, and cannot DO COURT but that ii
has quasI-judicial powers"
There Is a similar case pending in the
federal court. and another In the Statt
courts IN which V. Il. Malott is defendant
| released. The Tax Commission, having nov
| no authority to compel answers to ques
tions. must drop such Investigations unit
additional legislation Is secured.
| Deny the Courts Jurisdiction.