The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1893-02-08

Every Way.
Friday afternoon the supreme court rem
dered an opinion affirming that of the lower
court in the Big Four tax case The case
known as the c.. &C. & St L. railwaylcompany
vs.. Victor NJ. Bsckus, treasurer, is one of the
most important decided 10 the courts of
Indiana. The Big Four case was but enc of a
number OF suits pending, but a test case
was made of it. the other railroads
joining In an effort to defeat the provisions OF
the tax law and the appraisemeuts Of the state
board oftsxatioa. The courts decision set
ties all the railroad cases The amount in
volved is Sl00,o00,000. The old ssessment on
the railroad property OF the state was SOS. OCo-
900. The state board Of taxation increased
this amount by 800 100000 bus the railroad
corporations rendered tho taxes on the old as
sessment aud refused to pay the increased
taxes. The tax on the increased
assessment amounts TO 81. 5)00 600 a year, and as
last years taxes were held back the railroads
now owe the state an aggregate OF 80, 900 900
unpaid taxes. While affirming the decision of
the lower court the supreme court holds what
Judge Brown refused 20 hold, and that is that
the state board has the same power of review as
county boards.
The case mas attracted wide atten ton and the
railroads Of the state have been watching its
progress with consuming interest. The Big
-Four company brougt suit nssrly q year ego IN
the circuit court to restrain treasurer Backus
from cOllectinR the increased taxes assessed by
the state board. The state won and the case
was taken 10 the supreme court
The state vas represented in oral
argument before that tribunal by Attor.
ney-General smith, John W. Kern. W. A.
Ketcham and A. J. Beyeridge, aud Claypooi &
Claypool appeared for the treasurer
For the Big -Four, John I. Dye A. c. Harris,
Butler, Snow q Butter, and ). .. Pickeus SD.
peared.
The supreme court was unanimous In sus-
tanning the lower court, Justice Odds writing
the opinion. Ii is in Substance as follows:
The Opinion.
This 10 . suit brought by the appellant
against the appellee TO enjoin the collection Of
taxes assessed against the appellant railway
company by the state board Of tax commits
sionsrs OF Indiana.
The plaintiff IL a corporation organized
under the laws Of Ohio aud Indiana aud Is and
has been for several years engaged in the husi-
ness Of a common carrier o! freight aud pAsten-
gers and an operating q system OF railroads In
the states Of ONO. Indiana and Illinois having
varloua line0 OF railroads In Indiana aud its
railroad track aud rolling stock were assessed
for taxation by the SAID state board OF tax com
niissioneTs under the act Of the legislature OF
Indiana, approved March 6. 81.
The principal question involved In this case
relates to the constitutionality aud validity OF
the Law under which the appellants property
was assessed, though around this question
cluster some others which we will consider
later on.
The not makes provision for the assessment
OF real and personal property by township and
county assessors. creates a county board ol
equalization in each county ia the state and
see. IL gives TO such county boards power
/ 10 hear com plants OF any owner OF
4 personal property except railroad track,
aud rolling stock Of railroads, q
! eagalizs the valuation Of property and
/ tsxAbles" and provides that "it shall pass
J upon each valuation. and may, on suthcie
cause being shown, or on its own motion. cor
/ root the assessment or valuation OF any prop
/ eTty In suoh manner as will In its Judgment
/ make the valuation thereof just and squA,
/ and provides that appeals shall lie from the
/ decision Of any county board OF review 60 ths
state board Of tax comm .ssioners which shall
/ hear and determine the same in such manner
as Il may by its Tules prescribe aud certify IL,
/ decisions. which shall pe final 70 she proper
county auditor"
Here diusrent sections Of tho law are 70
cited.
/ Two Of tho principal reasons on which il &
/ oontended this act 10 void are; ~ That Il de
MES due process OF law 30 railway o0rporti0nl
touching the assessment and valuation OF thei
/ property, denomnated by the act railroad
( track" aud trolling stock" and ~ there ore re-
4 pugnant 20 and Ia conflict with see /, art IL o
! the constitution Of the United States declaring
| Nor shall any state deprive any person OF liie
| liberty or property without due process o. law.
and sec. IL. art OF the constitution OF lndi
ana providing that Every man. for injur!
/ done TO him Ia his person, propert,
I or reputation shalt have remedy
/ by due course Of law. t2l That the act Is vol,
| for the reason that II denies the railroad com
! pAnies the equal protection OF the laws granted
/ 20 all other persons against erroneous, unJus
| and Illegal assessments OF the value OF properly
/ upon which taxes are assessed 10 be levied, IL
that II grants to all persons tho right or priv
lego 10 be heard before some tribunal author
/ lied 10 correct errors or give appropriate relic
/ concerning the correctness or equality OF az
i aessment or inequalities In the same. or mia
takes OF fact or law or illegal conduct OF thos
charged with the duty OF making the sam
after the original assessments have beer
made aud before they become final ant
conclusive, aa n protection againH
/ burdens imposed by such mistakes and errors
but as 20 railway companies tine act utterly de
! MES all protection whatever against the sam'
boards against which Others are projected. ant
thoTetors the act IL Ia conflict with that part o
/ the fourteenth amendment of the constitution
of the United States, which provides that NJ
state shall deny TO any person within its iuris
diotion the equal protection OF tue laws" sec
l. arr. IL L. ). constitution.
We will consider these two objections 20 tn
validity Of the statute in the adverse orde
from which they are stated. IL IL coDtende'
that railway companies are persons within th'
meaning OF these provisions OF the constitu a. n
and this contention must be conceded 10 b.
correct
Equal Protection.
To determine whether or not railway com
pan es arc denied equal protection Of the law
given by the act 10 all other persons, We mus
first Interpret the law and see what rights AM
privileges are given to them and others, an,
What burdens are likewise i'm posed on each. an,
see wherein the rights given TO and burden
! imposed upon others dilsr from those givei
! 10 aud imposed upon railway companies, for .
! no real sorepanoy within the meaning Of th'
+ constitution In fact exists between the rights o
railway companies and other persons, then Ga
objeetion that the railway companies ar,
denied equal protection of the Law must fail
! The fact that wrong was committed in the
execution OF the law or that error was com
mittsd aud not corrected is no objection to th
validity OF the law.
Asto property other than that dsnominste,
By the law az railroad track" and "Tollin
stock" inelud ding all property. real and personal
I OF individuals, the law provides Tor its assess
ment by assessors and IL creates county board
| OF review In the several counties OF the state
and by sec. ia. from which We have herein De
fore quoted, 10 10 provided that such count
boards shall pass upon each valuations an
may on sufficient cause being shown, or on IL
own motion. correct the assessment or vaua
ton OF any property in suoh manner a. will, u
! it, Judgment make the valuation thereof JUS
and eauAl." This section, while IL may not civ
20 county boards the right TO change individual
assessments OF parties not legally before tll
/ board IL evidently contemplntes aud gives III
! ii. - Iaa 10 has haa