The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-05
STREET-RHILWAY TAXES
THE STATE TAX BOARD ASKED TO
INCREASE ASSESSMENT.
Attorneys Van Vorhis ard Shepard
Make the Argument-Meriu
MOOres's Appeal.

N0%6NRA ~ "
dianapolis. F.. ]. Van. vorhis and S. NJ.
Shepard had appealed from the assessments
fixed by the County Board of Review on
the Citizens Street-railroad property and
the Indianapolis Gas Company, while Mer-
rill Moores had appealed from the assess
ment of the Indianapolis Manufacturing
Company. The morning was devoted to the
hearing of the treet-railroad case and in
the afternoon the Manufacturing Company
and Gas Company were taken up in their
order.
Mr.. Van Vorhis opened the case against
the street-car company. 1T will take but
a moment or two" said he, Ito state the
case. An examination of the report made
by this company to the county officer and
submitted to the County Board of Review
shows on the face Of the report that the
capital stock of the company is 5000, 1000.
They report that on April l it was worth
1712 cents, making the total value of the
stock $4,000. They also report a bonded
debt of a little over 100000. We
insist that on the face Of the returns the
company shows the value of the property
to be a little over $780, 600. Exactly what
the cost of their real property is, we fail
to get, but this should be deducted from
the assessment put upon this capitaliza-
ZION ana the REMAINDER SnOuIQ We dSStSSGQs
They themselves make no report of values
other than this. They have left blank the
space for making a return of the value Of
their franchise. The board is justified in
making the valuation upon the market
value Of the stock and the face value of
the bonds. Now the market value of the
bonds on April / was IS cents on the dol
lar. On this basis then the property should
be valued at SO, $751; 900, instead of 1900, 900,
as fixed by the county board. Our claim
is that the value of the property is easily
ascertained to be about $4,000, 900, from
which should be deducted the real estate,
already assessed"
ARRIVING AT VALUES.
Mr.. Van Vorhis declared that there was
no use of multiplying words as to the
methods of arriving at values. He appre-
hended that the board used every method
that was reasonable, such as the cost of
construction, the market value of securi-
ties and net earnings, to arrive at a just
conclusion. But when the company left the
board but one or two methods it ought to
be bound by those methods. He then read
a transcript of the proceedings before the
county board, the very meagerness of
which he declared ought to hold the COM
pany to the fact stated in their return
anu SlOWGu That the DOdIu ought 10 CllllGI
be bound by them or to exercise it's right
of sending for persons and papers. He noted
the fact that the record of the county board
made no mention of the protest made be-
fore it by himself and Mr.. Shepard, where
in they had brought out the same facts
presented here. He read quotations from
the Daily Reporter showing that on April l
the bonds of the company were quoted at
20 cents and the stock at II cents. He de-
clared that there was no better way of ar
irving at the value of the property than
by adding the market value of the stock
and bonds. 1t was useless to talk Of how
the company was hampered by litigation or
by franchise legislation, for all this had
been taken into consideration in the mar
ket values which represented the matured
judgment of business men upon the value
or the property. evidence had been nitro
duced before the lower board from which
the members were able to calculate the
net income of the company during the last
fiscal year at about 500, 600, and on a basis
of 6 per cent. this would make the property
much more valuable than the figure they
had mentioned. He insisted that the assess
quate.
The attorney said he had no doubt of the
duty of the board to assess the franchise.
1t was it's plain duty under the law, as
written in Section Is. The property of the
company was not simply its tangible prop
erty, but it's franchises as well. For years
there had been much effort on the part
of quasi-public corporations to create con-
fusion about intangible property and hide
it away from taxation. That had been par
ticularly true UP to the organization of this
DOdru III 1871. lie iaQ argue the point
strongly then and the results were seen
in the Increased assessment of railroad
property for which the board deserved
great credit. Since then the United States
Supreme Court had stated clearly the doc
trine that the Intangible property of cor
porationS was subject to taxation.
Mr., Van Vorhis referred to another
point argued in behalf of these corpora
tons and that was the claim that their as
sessment was high as compared to that of
other property. 1t was the duty of this
board to assess property at its true value
aud nobody could come and say that it
should do wrong because county boards
had not done their duty. Il they were as
sessed at more than they were worth it
was the duty of the board to reduce them.
from corporations, but to do justice. How
ever, the attorney Ventured the assertion
that there was not a corporation in the
State that paid in taxes a greater per cent
age on it's net earnings than does the aver
age farmer upon his.
REMARKS OF MR.. WINTER.
us this all that is TO be presented" cool
ly asked Mr.. Winter, who represented the
street car company. at the close of Mr.. Van
Vorhis's argument. lie then proceeded to
say that he felt soma embarrassment in ar
guing a case in the total absence of any
presentation of facts. He spoke of the
high character of the men composing the
county board and declared they had the
further advantage of having personal
knowledge of the property and it's situa-
ton. AS to the record of the county
board these gentlemen had not presented
a single fact for its consideration. They
had simply presented argument there as
here and had not called a single witness.
A somewhat Wordy dispute followed as to
whether the count board had set a regular
day for hearing and given opportunity for
the presentation of evidence. Mr.. Winter
enlarged upon the fact that no evidence
had been produced and regarded it as a
strange notion that the judgment of the
county board could be OVerthroWn without
a syllable of evidence. He referred to the
appea made by j. +. Dunn in 1894 against
the assessment of 81, 100000 when the
State board had dismissed the appeal. He
declared that the road was in much better
had since been raised $100, 900, presumably
on the strength of the decision of Judge
WOODS. This, however, had not bettered
the property for everybody conceded that
the Legislature had the right to abolish the
company whenever il wanted 10,
Mr.. winter declared that the assessment
ought to be reduced. The law was not a
very complicated matter and the board
was entirely familiar with 1t. For ASSESS
ment purposes this company was not like
railroad corporations. Here Mr.. Winter
took occasion TO poke fun at Mr.. Van Vor-
his for claiming the credit Of having
raised the railroad assessments. He said
he understood that this was a question in
controversy between the present attorney
general and his predecessor. Colonel Walk
er interrupted long nough to declare that
the board of 1891 had practically determined
upon its assessments a week before Mr.
Van Norhis addressed them. The Governor
tried to shut off this irrelevant discussion.
but Mr.. Van Norhis insisted upon stating
that he had been hammering away on this
subject five wears before the board Of 1891
was organized.
THE COMPANY'S FRANCHISE.