The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-17
AN ILLEGAL ROAD TAX
SUIT INVOLVING NEARLY TWO Hun
DRIED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
Blackledge & Thornton Uncover
Cray's Order in WiIliams's Case.

Norman s. Byram vs. the Board of Com
missioners is the title of a complaint filed
with County Auditor Taggart, yesterday,
by the law firm of Blackledge Thornton.
The complaint asks that the petitioner may
have refunded to him the sum of 1898. the
amount Of taxes which, 1t is alleged, have
been illegally assessed and collected be-
tween the years 1888 and 1893. 1t is under
stood that the filing of this claim on the
part of the attorneys is to test the validity
of certain tax assessments made by the
county. Some months ago Messrs. Black
ledge & Thornton wrote to a number of
the heavier taxpayers OF this city announc-
ing that they had discovered a serious flaw
in the custom of collecting taxes for road
purposes. The recipients of these letters
were informed that for number of years
they had been assessed illegally for the
maintenance of the free turnpikeS of the
county. The attorneys who sent out these
notices declined, at the time, to talk about
the matter and, until the claim of Norman
s. Byram was filed with the auditor, yes
terday, nothing was known of their
scheme. The action of the attorneys is based
on the following statutory law: In 1879 the
Legislature provided that boards of County
Commissioners should also be boards of
turnpike directors and each year should give
to the AUDITOR; of counties estimates of the
amount of tax necessary to keep the free
turnpikes and gravel roads i'll repair for the
ensuing year. The auditor was required to
levy the amount of this tax on all the tax
able property in the county, but the amount
could not exceed one mill for each dollar
of the taxable property for each ten miles
OF free turnpike road completed.
NOT o1v n tb rs eg tbos tns tax
country districts, but on all property in
the cities. The complaint proceeds on the
tention Of the Legislature to to tax
property in the city in order that
highways in. the rural districts might
be kept up. 1t is contended that the Legis-
lature did not mean that cities should con-
tribute to the repair of highways in the
country, and that property owners in the
rural districts should not be compelled to
assist in the repairing of city streets. The
attorneys maintain that if this tax is valid,
the city must repair her own streets and
then contribute to the repairing of rural
highways, thus imposing a double taxation.
Nearly all the roads in Marion county
now free gravel turnpikes, and the attor-
neys say that If the burden is to continue
it will fall heavily on the taxpayers of the
city of Indianapolis. 1t is contended, fur
Their, that no part of the tax assessed to
the petitioner has been expended in the re-
gravel road within the boundaries of the
city of Indianapolis; that the county of Ma
rion, during the years 1888 and 1893. has
road or turnpike, either in whole or in part,
within the corporate limits of this city, but,
on the contrary. all the streets and public
highways within the city have been and
are now controlled, repaired and main
tanned by. the municipality. In conclusion,
tempts to authorize a levy of taxes upon
property situated within a municipal COR
poration to repair and maintain turnpik pixies
out the corporate limits of said corporation
it is unconstitutional and void, so far as it
authorizes levy upon property situated
wholly within the limits of such municipal
corporation.
Attorney Thornton when asked about the
claim of Mr.. Byram, said: 1.-THE purpose
of this suit is to test the right of the coun-
ty auditor to apply the levy of this tax
the Supreme Court has decided that a
township trustee cannot levy a tax upon
cit city ba tine city t Is fa
ship. This decision is based on the ground
that the township trustee renders the in
sequently they should not be taxed to pay
him for whatever service he may render
is in point upon the claim for refundng this
tax. In some of the counties of the State
this free gravel road tax is not levied upon
counties deeming such property exempt
from such taxes. We have great many
claims similar to that of Mr.. Byrams g..
Understand, we are only asking that this
tax be refunded on his city property: He
has great deal of real estate outside of
Indianapolis which is not set out in the
complaint
The complaint was received by Deputy
Auditor Johnson late yesterday evening,
who referred it to the County Commits
sioners. 1t has not yet been submitted to
County Attorney Brown.
This is a big thing" said Deputy John
don't think there is anything in it. If this
claim is good it will. at a rough estimate,
involve about $4,000, which the county
would have to refund to city taxpayers.
Blackledge & Thornton, I understand ex-
pect to receive SO per cent. all the
money they collect on these claims sup
pose this is a test case for the purpose
of getting the matter before the Supreme
Court"