The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-27


it's road extends was only 4s per cent while
as appears. that OF the proportion OF me
plaintiff was more than 15o per cent. Stiii.
1t must be borne In mind that mere IN
crease In the assessment does not prove
that the last assessment is wrong. some
thing more is necessary before IL viii be ad-
excessive, and the question which is TO be
now considered Is whether the testimony
shows that the assessment made by the
State board can be adjadged illegal
.sThe bill of exception discloses these
proceedings on the hearing. The plaintiff
offered the record Of tthe action or tie
assessment. as heretofore stated. SO much
less than that of 1891, which record was
rejected as irreavent and irnmateriAl
Thereupon the plaintiff offered the record
of the proceedings of the board III ISL.
which was admitted. This recited the ap-
pearance of the plaintiff by it's office-s,
valuation. 1t also contained a table D.
counties of the assessment as made by
the board, closing with this certificate:
Making liberal allowances for all proper
deductions the State Board of Tax Gem
missioners has fixed the values OF the
respective railroads and parts of roads
within the State of Indiana for tax1s:cn
the first day of April 1891. as herein-
before set forth. In arriving at the basis
for the estimate for said value the board
has considered the cost of the constrIc-
market value OF the stocks and bonds and
the. gross and net earnings OF each OF
said roads, and all other matters apper-
tanning thereto that would assist the
board in arriving at true cash value OF
"The return made by the plalntiff to the
cordance with the requirements of the stat
ute, was also given In evidence, which re-
turn was upon blank furnished by the
of about $S,000,000. This return was sworn
to by the general manager and secretary
of the cgs ne sec1ha sc t T1ie nent
called as a witness and after testifying 10
his familiarity with the property and its
value was asked the figure in 1890, but, on
objection. this testimony was ruled out. He
was permitted however. to give testimony
to the value in 1891. and his answer fixed
that value In the aggregate at $S,5SS,V ,V5S,
the same value that was placed upon the
property by the State board in 1890. He was
asked to state the average cash value per
and ide in in the the other States into Which the
companys road extended. treating the por-
ton in each State as constituting unit.
portions in the other States. but an
and and the testimony offered ruled out:
terminal facilities in the cities of Chi
cago and Pittsburg belonging 10 the
plaintiff. and their. great value and the
absence of terminal facilities of any par
ticular value in any Of the cities In H.
diana. He was then asked If the plaintiff
owned any rolling stock, which was used
in which it did business. but this ques-
ton was ruled out. In response 10 further
questions he testified that the plaintn
had no rolling stock used exclusively
within the State of Indiana for spe,ial
purposes. Certain questions were also
asked as to the notice or knowledge which
made by the State board in 1891 as to the
valuation, but we have heretofore he'd
that it is immaterial whether IL had any
notice thereof after the decision and prior
to the adjournment OF the board.
OTHER TESTIMONY.
."The assistant engineer of the plaintiff
was also called as a witness and, produc
ing a written statement which he had pre-
sented to the State board prior TO its de-
termination, which statement goes a length
into the mileage in the different States, the
gross earnings, per cent. of earnings and
the value of the track. testified that the
facts in such written statement were true.
Another witness, the assistant controller OF
the plaintiff was asked what per cent. of
the gross receipts Of its Indiana business
was derived from commerce beginning and
ending wholly within the state and what
from interstate business, but, on objection,
this testimony was ruled out.
''rhe Secretary of State, who was mem
Der of the State board, was also called,
and testified that the members OF the board
did not make an official examination or in
specton OF the railroad track and rolling
quaiHted Herewith; that they did not sum
mon before them or examine under oath
any person or persons acquainted with the
true cash value OF the property. The
plaintiff also offered the return made by the
Terre Haute & indianapolis RaiIuad Com
pany TO the Auditor of the State for the
year 1891, prepared upon the same form
as that upon which the plaintiffs return
was made but it was ruled out as irrele-
want and immaterial, as well as the action
taken by the State board in respect TO the
valuation of the property of such road.
This was. in substance, all the testimony
offered by the plaintiff. The defendant
simply called the Secretary of State. who
testified that in assessing the PLAINTIFF 5
property no assessment was made except
upon the railroad track and rolling stock
of plaintiff within the State. and no assess
ment was made of any property of value
outside the State.
.Upon this testimony the decision of the
court was that there nothing TO i'm
peach the assessment made by the State
board. and in this conclusion we concur.
erty in the State of Indiana in the year
1891 was a question of fact. the determine
ZION of which for the purposes of taxation
given TO this special tribunal, the State
thus submitted to the determination of a
special tribunal its decision creates some
thing more than "A mere presumption of
fact, and IL such determination comes into
inquiry before the courts ii cannot be over
thrown by evidence going only 10 show that
the fact was otherwise than as so found
and determined. Here the question deter
mined by the State board was the value
of certain property. The determination can
not be overthrown by the testimony of
two or three witnesses that the valuation
was other than that fixed by the board.
1t is true such testimony may be COM
petent. and was received in this case be-
cause. taken in conjunction with other tes-
timony, Ii might establish faudulent con-
duct on the part of the board sufficient to
vitiate its determination. 1t is not. how-
ever, contended by counsel that there
was any actual fraud on the part
of hat arH hot "a ind al
members thereof deliberately violated the
obligations of their oaths of Office, and in
tentionally placed upon the property OF the
plaintiff a valuation which they knew to
be grossly in excess of that which il in
fact bore, and did so with the purpose Of
making the plaintiff bear larger share Of
the burden of the support of the State gov
contention is rather that ii made a grievous
mistake in placing 30 high value, and that
il took into consideration property outside
of the State, and gave to the property
within value partly deducted from that
without the State.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT.
1.-The testimony however, does not sustain
this contention. The certificate Of the State
board does not show that il reached it's de-
termination of the value of the property
in Indiana by first ascertaining the total
value of the company's property, and then
dividing it on the mileage basis. II simply
shows that IL considered the matters, which,
by the statue were required TO be pre-
sented to il by the railroad company, as
well as all other matters. which, in its
ind ho n1FaE nf q