The Indianapolis journal., 1894-03-10
THE LEVY NOT LEGAL
Property in a City Cannot Be
Taxed for Township Purposes.
The Supreme Court Decides that Cues
ton and ReyerSes the Carroll Cir
cults Finding Suit.

The Supreme Court yesterday reversed
the judgment Of the Carroll Circuit Court
in the well-known tax case OF Hiram Ker-
lin and other citizens of Delphi against
Auditor Isaac Reynolds and Treasurer VII
liam j. Guckien Of that county, 70 enjoin
the collection as taxes for township pur-
poses and to the use Of Deer Greek town
ship Of cents on each s1CO in value CT the
real and personal property within that city
and owned by the appellant and such other
taxpayers there. The lower court decided in
favor Of the auditor and treasurer and
plaintiffs appealed successfully. as yester-
days result shows.
Two questions" says the uJinion, "are
presented by the record and discussed by
counsel, the first challenging the authority
OF the township for township purposes to
levy a tax upon the property within the
limits of and subject 20 taxation by an in
corporated city, and the second denying the
sufficiency of the record Of The County Com
missiOners to disclose a concurrence by the
board in such levy. Our conclusion renders
1t unnecessary to consider the Mariner of
making the levy since We Lave no doubt OF
the absence of any authority TO make
levy for such purposes upon srch property.
The question does not depend upon the con-
stitutional authority of the Legisa lure to
subject the property OF he minor political
subdivision TO taxation for the purposes of
the major division for the reason that Ire
Legislature has not, so far we have feen
able to learn, attempted by any existing
legislation to exercise any such authority.
Ihe township trustee is an officer chosen
by the people whom he serves, and these
comprehend not alone he people af the
township outside The Incorporated cities and
towns but also the citizens within sJch
cities and towns. Outside the cities his
duties relate 10 the Schools and the roads
Even these duties are so performed that
school trustee. AMI when reLting to the
highways and 20 some other township
township and is commonly known as the
township trustee. in the performance of
anY OF such d1ties he does not serve the
people OF the cities and owes them no obli-
cation for the manner in which he performs
such duties. With relation to the highways
and the schools within the city, they are
subject alone TO Official control of officers
OF such city AMI are s'tpcC~-sl and main
tanned alone by the citizens OF the city
the Legislature for enforcement by and
through the official az encies of the city.
In these respects" continues the court,
'and possibly in some others, the city cor
poration and that of the school or civil
townships are entirely separate and dis
tlnct; though the city is within the geo
There is no authority given to tax the peo-
pie OF a township outside the city for the
support or interests Wltnln and relating
alone to the city in it's distinct corporate
capacity, and ii may, in like manner, be
said that those interests which are peculiar
TO the citizens and the property outside
such city must find support alone from
those whose interests they are, namely,
those of the township distinguished from
those of the city. IN the absence of affirm
atiVe legislation commingling such inter-
ests, dividing such burdens and providing
that common officer shall protect and en-
force them, we must hold that they are
to be deemed separate and treated accord
ingly.
This conclusion necessarily follows from
the nature of our forms of local govern
ment. This conclusion does not. however.
exclude the idea that there may be inter
ests general and mutual as between the
citizens and the property within the cities
and the civil township"
The support and care of the poor is cited
by the court as an instance of mutuality
OF interest where there can be no objection
to taxation bearing alike upon the whole
township. The cities and towns under the
general laws of the State. maintain no sep
arate methods of caring for the poor, but
for that purpose the trustee is the agent
and officer for them In common with the
citizens of the township outside the cities.
In this respect, at least, the court holds
that the trustee is the officer of the citi-
Zens of both the city and the township out
side the city, and in this is found an an
swer TO the argument that if not a repre-
sentative of the city population that pop
ulation should and could have no voice in
his election.
I'VE conclude. therefore" says the opin-
ion, that the levy in question was without
authority of law so far as IL included prop
erty within the city of Delphi and that the
ruling of the Circuit Court was erroneous.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is re-
plicants' motion for a new trial" Justice
Hackney wrote the opinion.