The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-06-14
ANOTHER TAX RULING
JUDGE BAKER SUSTAINs STATES
DEMURRER IN WESTERN UNION CA
Judgment Rendered I'm Accordance
with the Supreme Courts De-
cision in Another Case.

Auditor at the time of the fling OF the
SUIT Practically the same questions were
involved IN the case that had been decided
by the Supreme Court of the State i'm the
case OF the Western Union company against
Inomas Taggart, auditor OF Marion coun-
~, and Judge Baker decided in favor of
the State. The question of the jurisdiction
or the federal court was raised by the
Attorney-general, who claimed that il was
really suit against the State, in which
case. under the eleventh amendment to the
United States Constitution. the federal
court would have no jurisdiction. This was
the first point considered by the court. and
OF the twenty-thrae pages of the opinion
nineteen are devoted to the recital of de-
cisions touching the jurisdiction of federal
courts in such cases. The opinion then
continues:
From this review it will be seen that.
while there has not always been harmony
cislons OF the court, touching the true
meaning Of the eleventh amendment IL
has never been doubted or denied. since
the decision in the case of Osborn VS..
Bank OF the United States. supra, that
the Circuit Courts of the United States
were invested with jurisdiction and power
to restrain an officer OF the State from
committing tortuous or wrongful acts, vio-
lative OF the personal or properly rights OF
party, where such acts are committed
or threatened to DE committed, under and
pursuant TO the pretended authority of an
unconstitutional statute. The defendant i'm
this case is alleged to be about TO commit
an act under and pursuant to statute
alleged to be unconstitutional, which, il
committed, would wrongfully and to its
irreparable injury create an apparent
charge and lien upon the complanants
property in violation of its right TO Sc
curity of property guaranteed to it by the
Constitution. In Going such act the de-
nnl do he TO-
half of the State. for the reason that the
state has not by any valid statute given
him authority to perform the act. While
an officer OF the state, he ceases to act
as the representative of the State when
ever he does or attempts to do an act for
not been granted by a valid statute. The
court, therefore, has jurisdiction of the
present case, and must determine the 9TH
er questions presented by the motion and
demurrer to the hill.
THE first question raised and argued by
counsel for the complainant is that the
Of which the valuation and assessment of
its property for the purposes of taxation
were made, never became a law of the
journals of the Senate and House of Rep
resentatives. that the bill was passed by
the Legislature and sent to the Governor
within the two lays next preceding the
final adjournment of the General Assembly.
fixed by the Constitution. in violation
Of Article o. Section IA. of the said instru-
ment.
This exact question was presented in
the case of the Western Union Telegraph
Company VS.. Taggart ct al. 40 n. +. Rep,
Court of the State of Indiana. The bill
in that case was, m substance and scope,
the same as the oil in this court. and the
act in question ~as assailed upon the
same grounds as those presented and ar
gued before me. The validity OF the same
acts of the State Board of Tax Commits
-sr drat in N hnf =
courts. After extended review of the
authorities the court held that the statute
in question was valid. 1t was said: The
provided in Article 4. Section %. of the
Constitution, that ALI bills and joint reso-
lutions so passed shall be signed by the
is conclusive evidence that the act was
duly passed in conformity with the pro-
visions of the organic law of the State.
the statute, enrolled and filed in the office
of the Secretary o. State. comes TO us as
by the solemn authorization of the Legis-
its presiding officers. Such Authorization
imports absolute verify as to the passage
of the act; even as In the case OF the acts
of the court, which are authenticated by
it's certificate and seal under the hand Of
This decision oonclusively settles. so far
as the courts of the United States are
concerned, that the act in question was
constitutionally enacted
"It was further insisted in that case.
as ii is i'm this. that the act in question
was invalid: First, because it fails to pro-
vide due process CT law; secondly. because
it denies to the complainant the equal pro-
lection of the law; thirdly, because il vio-
lates the provisions OF the Constitution or
the United States, which prohibits any
State from laying any imposts or duties
on imports or exports; fourthly, because
1t is in violation of the provisions OF the
State Constitution. which require a uni
form and equal rate OF taHa tho G ntthiy,
ton of the United States in that ii
amounts to regulation of commerce
among the States and with foreign coun-
stitution. of the state as being in effect
a local or special law, and, seventhly, it
is I'm violation Of the Constitution OF the
executive and administrative officers.
these several objections were carefully
he unfounded. This act is adjudged by the
highest judicial tribunal of the state TO
have been validity enacted, and not 10 De
The courts of the United States are bound
to accept the statute In question as
binding and constitutional enactment OF
son of its conflict with some provision OF
the Constitution of the United States. Its
alleged repugnancy 10 the Constitution Oh
great care in The case of the Western
Union Telegraph Company VS.: Taggart ct
al. supra. and 1t was there held that no
is fully supported by the following de.
eisions Of the Supreme Court OF the United
states: Pittsburg; Etc. R'y co: VS.; B sn,k
graph Company VS.. Massachusetts, Us I.
s. $50: Pullman Palace-car Company VS..
Pennsylvania. iM L. s; ls' Maine Maj VS..
iotte Columbia. etc. Railroad VS. Gibbes.
lac L. =. $50: COLUMBUS Southern Railway
Us. Wright. Isl L. =. 40.
.sIt is lastly insisted that the State Board
of Tax Commissioners adopted rule OF
valuation. the necessary result OF which
was TO fix the valuation on complainant
property higher than that hxed upon other
PROPERTY i'm the state. This claim IS equal
iy unfounded. The valuation OF It's prop
ertv was assessed upon mileage basis.
u,h;ch has heen sustained bv the Supreme
Court in the cases above cited.
..The bin of complaint Is insufficient TO
entitle the complainant to the reiief prayed
Gov The motion 10 dissolve the temporary
restraining order is therefore sustained.
and the bin is dismissed for want OF equity
- IL n Y