The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-03-09

Attorneys ofthe Corporations in
Indiana to Be Heard in the Tax Case.
Smith Is Much Exercised Over 1t-Millers
Defense of His Bru;ality--No Change Of
Venue-Court Notes

The oral argument before the Supreme
Court in the case of Henry W. Langenoerg.
Sheriff. VS.. Philip c. Decker. was set for
Thursday. but yesterday developed an IN
susuected cause of delay. $. o. PIckens.
attorney for the Pennsylvania road; John
II. Dive. counsel for the Big Four; John NJ.
Butler. attorney for the Pullman Company,
or some other gigantic corporation. filed an
application to be heard in the argument
before the the court in case two questions
should be discussed. These were TO the
authority of the State Tax Commission to
make original assessments on railroad
property other than on rolling stock, and
second, as to the constitutionality of the
act in reference to Article TO-
Section /; Article 4. Section y; Article l.
Section %. The application was granted.
necessitating thus delay of at least thir-
~ days Attorney general Smith was
cooked and primed with the ablest effort of
his life. and attorneys Harris Ketcham and
Stewart. for the other side. were ready for
tho battle. The announcement of the fling
and grant of the application struck them
like q thunderbolt. and filed them with
disgust. They do not want the merits of
considerations. This act Indicates" said
the Attorney-general." IAN effort on the part
ofcorporate wealth TO combine and Overturn
the laws of the State. Ijams. owner of
Axtell. or any other private citlZens, might
as well come In and ask TO be heard In this
case"
The petitioners were called Intermediates
by the disgruntled counsel The applica-
tion 10 justified by the petitioners III the
Or ma 10 nh ~ Of n IN a
asked In order to avoid the filing of other
suits OF magnitude involving great inter
ests.
The banking case IN question is the one
in which Philip T.. Decker, being commit
ted to Jail by order of the Tax Commission.
was released on habeas corpus 10y Judge
Taylor. His offense was in refusing to give
the names of depOsitors and amounts on
deposit In his bank at Evansville on April
!. 1871.
The application made by The railroad at
torneys IL in the following form:
The undersigned would respectfully inform the
court that they have in contemplation the bring
ing OF certain suits which will involve the con-
structiOn ana administration OF the act OF the
Legislature OF Indiana. approved March g. 1891,
pcaling all Laws in Conflict Herewith, and De
claring an Emergency" Some or the contem-
plated suits may. and probably will. involve the
validity and cOnstitutionality OF certain sections
OF said statute.
Two OF the questions which will he presented
will be:
First-Has the State Board of Tax Commits
sioners any right or power, under said statute.
&c make original assessments for taxation upon
personal property-Otber than the personal
property OF railroad corporations, denOminated
In said statute ''rolling stOckl"
Second-Does said statute In any OF Its prOvis-
ions. violate and conflict with Article 10. section
i, OF the state Constitution, which provides that
1.-THE General Assembly shall provide, by law,
for a uniform and equal rate OF assessment and
taxatiOnp Or with Article 4, Section %, of
said State Constitution. which provides that
special laws: for the assessment and
collection of taxes for State, county. township
road purposesf' Or with Article 1, Section %,
OF said State Constitution, which provides that
1.-The General Assembly shall not grant to any
citizen, or class OF citizens privileges or immu-
mites which, upon the terms. shall not
equally belong 10 all ctiZeIsl'
III, therefore, in the consideration of the case
of Henry W. Langenberg, Sheriff OF Marion
County. vs.-Philip Decker" No. 1878. on the
present docket of your court, or in the consider
court, Ii Is found that either OF the above ques-
lions must be considered and finally decided, We
most respectfully pray the court that we may be
heard touching said questions herein above
stated, at such time ana III such manner as the
court may designate. before said questions
either OF them Is finally considered and decided.
We prefer this request in the interest or several
clients represented by Ia, severally, and IN the
hope that a large number OF suits mag be
avoided.
The magnitude OF the questions and the inter
avoid litigation, constitute our Justification in
ia