The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-03-14
Dress Making Department
will open Monday, March u.

S21a. 600: 1889. same So. 600. The taxes
due on this property, he claimed, We're
100000
The objections to the auditors assess
ment urged in appellee's brief are the
same as those made i'm the lower court
The supreme court disposes Of them all
at considerable length. finding nothing
i'm them to sustain the position taken by
the appellee. The auditor. the opinion
SAYS. was authorized by the statute 10
proceed as he did upon receiving infor-
nation written or oral. that any prop
erty has been omitted from taxation
The auditor can necessarily give only 4
general description of the property, the
tax law recurring the property-owner
himself TO give a particular description
Of the property when he hands his list
To the assessor. Another fatal defect.
the opinion holds, was the admlnlsira-
tors defense that the decedent made ms
own assessment, swoTe 10 it. the assess
ing officers accepted the assessment so
made and now there is no help for It
The appellee makes no pretense that the
assessment was fair or Just OF that the
decedant had, in fact, given in all ms
property for taxation. He says, IN Ell
feet to the state. the thing is done ana
what are YOU going To do about it -
one of the contentious of the appellee
was that the tax law OF 1871 repealed
all former laws upon the subject OF TAX
alton and took away all rights existing
expressly saved and as the right or
the auditor To assess omitted property for
any year or years prior TO its passage -
not saved by the act of 1891 such right
does not exist. This. again says the
| supreme court. els claiming equity with
| out doing equity. If these taxes are un-
paid they belong 10 the state. They are
the states property and the right Of the
state to them never ceased. rms con-
| tention amounts 10 saying, These taxes
/ - a 4
! deprived herself of the means of col
| Letting them But a matter of fact
the statute of 1891 has not repealed the
| law authorizing the assessment or omit
| ted property by the auditor. The legis-
lature in enacting this law had no IN
tention Of giving delinquent taxpayers
any such advantage over the honest peo-
| pie of the state. IF there Is any class
4 Of property more than another which
/ that law sought 10 have returned and
/ appraised at its true value, IL IS such
| property as is concerned in this suit
and which has for SO long a time escaped
| taxation in the hands OF INSCRIPTIONS
| mOney-lenders, namely. money, notes.
| bonds and other credits. The opinion
| further saws that the supreme court has
difficulty in concluding that the legisla-
| ture in enacting a law which might IN
| some measure relieve the people OF the
| state from the evils Of unequal taxation
| would never think of repaling a law
| which provided for assessing property
| which had been for years dishonesty
| kept off the tax duplicate, particularly
| when the same law is found re-enacted
| word for word in the new statute.
| There remains, therefore" concludes
| the oDiniOn no ground on which the
! complaint I'm this case can stand. It
! may be added that when we find honest
| officials respecters of their oaths as the
| auditor and eX-auditor, the appellants
| in this case. it is the duty Of the courts
| n F1n str %
support of the law as enacted by the
| 1ao-iSIa f11ra Of the state"