The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-13
HE SCORED MR.. KETCHAM
JUDGE BAKERS REMARKS IN RE-
LEASING BOARD OF REVIEW.
1t Acted on Attorney Generals Adj
Vice-FederaI Court InjunctiOns
Are Meant to BE Obeyed.

Baker in the Federal Court yesterday after
noon and the defendants went home to seek
medical advice for a case of heart disease.
After the proceedings of the morning they
expected nothing less than a few hours in
Jail at best but in the afternoon they filed
answers declaring that they had acted upon
the advice of the attorney general and the
county attorney without any intention of
violating the injunction Of the court. Upon
this plea the court excused them, while at
the same time making rather severe STRIFE
lures upon the lawyers who had given this
advice.
The proceedings came up on petition of
the Indiana Manufacturing Company,
which two years ago obtained a decree
from the court preventing the County
Board of Review from taxing its patent
rights or its capital stock representing the
value of these patent rights. This decree,
dated March 3, 1886, reads as follows:
This cause came on to be heard Jan. II,
1885, on pleadings and proofs and was
argued orally by Chester Bradford on be-
haH OF the compartments and by Alfred X;
HoVey on behalf of the defendants, and
briefs were duly filed; and now the court,
having duly considered the same and being
sufficiently advised in the premises, doth
find for the complainant, and that all the
material facts set forth in its bill of COM
plant ana supplemental bill OF complaint
consideration thereof doth order, adJudge
and decree as follows, to wit:
"First-That the statutes of the State of
Indiana relating to and requiring the taxa
ton of patent rights or letters patent of
the United States are unconstitutional, in
''Second-That the taxes assessed by the
defendants, acting in their official capaci-
ties, against the complainant on account of
indirect assessment for taxation Of the
patent rights or letters patent owned and
held by complainant.
'fThird-That the cloud placed upon the
title of compartments corporate property by
reason OF the wrongful, lnequitaole, unlaW-
ful and void assessment and valuation COM
planned Of be, and the same Is hereby re-
moved.
'Fourth-That a perpetual injunction
issue out of this court directed to the said
defendants Sterling K. Holt, individually
and as treasurer Of Marion county, Indiana,
and mis- successors in office; Joel A. Baker
individually and as assessor OF Marion
county Indiana, and his successors in
office; Thomas Daggart individually and as
auditor of Marion county, Indiana, and his
successors in Office George Wolf, indi-
Vidually and as assessor d Center town
ship, in Marion county, Indiana, and his
successors in office, and the said William
A. Bell and Charles h. Stuckmeyer ana
their successors in office and each and
every one of them and all their deputies,
clerks, attorneys, agents ana servants, ana
all persons acting by, through or under the
authority of them or either of them; en-
joining and restraining them ana each OF
them and their successors in office forever
from in any wise collecting or IN any man
ner attempting to collect the amounts
claimed as taxes and entered upon the tax
duplicates in the custody OF said de-
PENDANTS or either of them, or any other
amount which may be claimed to be due on
account of the value of any patent rights
or letters patent owned or held by COM
plainant directly or indirectly, or on ac-
count of the value of the stock OF COM
plainant by which such patent rights or
letters patent may be represented.
"Fifth-That complainant do recover its
amounting SlUJ SO. against the SAID
defendants and have execution therefor IN
the same manner as in an action at law"
ATTORNEY GENERALS ADVICE.
Upon this decree a writ of injunction was
issued, worded in about the same way per-
petuaily enjoiningi the members OF the
board and their successors from taxing, di-
rectly or indirectly. the patent rights of the
company or the capital stock representing
such patent rights The board was advised
by the attorney general and county attor-
ney that the injunction applied only to the
years of 1898, 1894 and 1885, and could not
affect the future action of the board. In
accordance with this advice the board as
sessed the capital stock OF the company at
$1S0,000 in 1896 and at SZlOOUO IN 1877. Inc
company then petitioned the court, ana the
members of the boards of 1896 and 1891 were
ruled to appear before Judge Baker yester-
day and show cause why they should not
be punished for contempt. yesterday
morning the defendants filed demurrer by
their attorneys, Hawkins q Smith, in which
they defended their action upon the ground
that the injunction did not apply TO the last
two years. The argument upon TINS SUD
ject occupied the whole morning, ana at
noon the court oVerruled the demurrer
without stating reasons
This made it look "a bit dark for the de-
PENDANTS and there were visions or Jan TOT
several prominent citizens Upon the re-
assembling of the court the defendants flied
answers. All the members or the p0@Fu OF
1886 except Hiram Miller joined IN the Iol-
William H. Schmidt, Joel "A. Baker,
Harry Il. Smith and William A Ben, Tor
answer and return TO the writ issued herein,
recurring them to show cause, IL any, why
they should not be punished FOR contempt
of this court, upon their respective oaths
show to the court that as 10 so mucn OF
the petition filed herein as refers TO their
action as members of the County Board OF
Review of Marion county, state OF lndl-
ana. for the wear 1896 that they were, and
each of them were, in the year 1885, mem.
bers of the County Board OF ReVleW OF
bers of said board, 1t became ana was thelr
duty to examine and pass upon the tax
returns made by the several corporatlonss
in said county to the assessors OF
the several townships in said county tnat
when in the proceedings OF sala pQarui ne
return of the complainant hereln, the 1hul-
ana Manufacturing Company, was SUB
mitted to said board, and the evidence OF
the officers of said company was taken, as
set forth in the petition, the said board
were advised by the attorney general OF the
State of Indiana and by a. X. HoVey, at
tOrney Tor tue BOdIu VI AOHlllllSSlOllCAS VI
said Marion county, Indiana, VINO were
present before said board and conducting
said examination and acting as attorneys
for said board in said matter, and advising
said board with reference 10 the matter,
that the decree entered by this court IN SAID
cause, of the Indiana Manufacturing Com
pany VS.. Sterling r. Holt ct al, being cause
No. 1865 in this court, and the writ or IN
junction issued hereunder, did not apply
to or control the action or the county
Board of Review, of Marion county, Tor
the wear 1896 and future years, but that
the same only applied and affected the
ton of the boards of review Tor previous
years and to the collection, or attempting
to collect the taxes entered upon the tax
duplicate for and during previous years,
and that it had no Application 70 tne ac -
ton of the county boards of review in the
years succeeding the year 1880; that they
were also informed and ADVISED that the
said cause No. 9066 had been or was about
to be appealed, and that an appeal from
the decision Of the court in said cause
Of said Marion county, which said appeal
was to be prosecuted for The purpose OF
reviewing, and reversing the decision OF the
court and the decree entered in said cause;
and they were advised that II they TOOK
no action in 1896, and said cause was re-
versed upon appeal, it would then be too
late for said board to act, and fix the value
of the taxable property of the complain
ant for the year 1896; that they, and each
of them, in their acts and dOings as men,
hers of said board in 1895, acted in good
faith, upon the advice of said attorneys,
as to the effect of the decree entered in
said cause, and believing and relying upon
said advice, and believing that the said de-
cree 50 entered. as aforesaid, did not APP
ply, or was not intended to apply 10 their
action in 1896; and they further show and
state, that they, in their action in 1896, did
not believe that they were and did not in