The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-06
TEST CITY CHARTER
ARGUMENT HEARD IN THE SUIT OF
THE CLAyPOOL HEIRS.
The Case May Reach United States
Supreme Court ON Question of
Constitutional Law.

The case of the Claypool heirs against
the county and city officials to enjoin
extending their farm on the tax dupli-
Gates for city taxation, was argued at
length yesterday before Judge Brown The
Claypool farm, which lies beyond the resi-
uence portion OF the city and far from
any street or any other city improvements,
was annexed to the city by the Council
so that it might be charged with the pay
ment for some of the city sewers and
of various other city improvements. Other
farm property was annexed at the same
time. All those farmers who lived on their
land were given a hearing but the Clay
pool heirs, who did not live their farm,
although living in the city, were denied
a hearing to the business of the an
nexation. The city charter grants to all
persons who live upon their farms the
right to resist annexation proceedings by
being heard in Council and by an appeal
TO the court but if man owns farm
ana does not live it he is denied the
right to be heard at any time place and
IN any manner whatever. The city de-
INJURED to the complaint and the argu-
ment was upon the demurrer
city Attorney Scott, on behalf of the city,
argued that the question of the boundary of
the city was q legislative one, over which
the Legislature had absolute control. He
SAID that annexation was not in any sense
taking of property and that no hearing
was necessary, that being the case. Many
authorities were cited in support of his
proposition. He maintained that the Legis-
lature had a right to classify property and
citlZenS, and that this would not deny to
me plaintiffs the equal protection of the
laws. 1T is all a question of territorial
jurisdiction said Mr.. Scott, land over this
matter the Legislature has unlimited con-
troll,
Albert J. Beveridge, for the Claypool
neirs, maintained that the annexation sec
IONS Oh the city charter violate both the
State and federal constitutions, because
tney provide for the taking of property
they deny to citizens similarly situated the
eqmai protection of the laws.
ut Is admitted" said Mr.. Beveridge,
that taxation is a taking of property with
III the meaning of the fourteenth amend
ment to the Constitution of the United
states Annexation is a taking of property
nexation at once subjects the annexed prop
serty to new and additional burdens which
II aid not bear before. 1t is true that the
legislature has full power over all ques-
tions of municipal boundaries. but it must
exercise that power within the lines marked
out by the Constitution. The Constitution
says that no State shall pass any law by
which citizen may be deprived of his prop
erty in any way without due process of
law. Due process of lay means that citi-
zen shall be heard before his property is
taken. 1t may be taken without his con-
sent, but not without giving him an oppor-
tunity to present his facts and reasons
against it,
Suppose, continued Mr.. Beveridge, that
the Legislature should pass 81 law, providing
that the residents of North Meridian street
should have special privileges in resisting
street improvements, and expressly denied
those privileges to the owners of property
on South Meridian street. No one will deny
that this would be fragrant and outrageous
denial of the equal protection of the laws
which the Constitution of the general gov
Vernment guarantees to us, yet that is no
more outrageous than the discrimination
inflicted upon citizens by the city charter
The land owners lands precisely alike
and are in precisely the same situation and
condition and yet because owner lives
on his farm and the other owner does not
live on his farm the first is granted extraor-
binary privileges, and the second expressly
denied all privileges whatever. The dis
elimination does not grow out of the nature
of the property nor of the condition of the
citizens. 1t is an arbitrary intentional and
unjust discrimination
Many authorities were cited by both
sides and the argument consumed most of
the day. An early decision is looked for
Should the law be declared unconsttu-
tional the present Legislature will doubt
less remedy it. Should it be declared con-
stitutional the will probably be car
ried to the Supreme Court of the United
States.