The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-09
A PARK LAW TEST SUIT
COMPLAINT, COVERING ALL POINTS,
TO BE FILED THIS MORNING.
indianapolis Brewing Company, of
Which Commissioner Lieber Is at
the Head, to BE the Plaintiff.

Baker & Daniels are preparing to bring a
suit to enjoin the Board of Park Commits
sioners and Park Assessors Flack, Burton
and Coffin from proceeding with the assess
ments of benefits and damages against the
indianapolis Brewing Company, as author
lied by the directors of the company. The
Indianapolis Brewing Company owns 1913
acres in Section 30 which is included in the
advertised list of lands to be taken for
parks in the Pogues run system. What
was formerly known as Brighton Beach is
located on this land. The Maus brewery,
near White river, lies in the district that
is assessed for benefits. This brewery is
now owned by the Indianapolis Brewing
Company. AS it is interested in about
every way that any property holder can be,
both by virtue of having land that is to be
taken and land that is assessed as bene-
fitted, it is proposed to embody every objec-
ton that has been raised to the park law
in the INJUNCTION suit.
Mr.. Daniels was busy preparing the COM
plant yesterday afternoon, comparing the
law section by section with the State Con-
stitution. Beside averring that the section
giving the board five-year tenure is in
direct contravention of the Constitution,
the complaint will also aver that the sec
ton of the Constitution has been violated
which provides that the Legislature shall
provide by law for uniform and equal
rate of assessment and taxation; and shall
prescribe such regulations as shall
secure a just taxation of all prop
erty.' 1t has been objected that the
park law gives the assessors too much dis
cretionary power and permits them to levy
a tax for buying and improving parks that
is not uniform and equal" In support of
this objection attorneys for clients whose
lands have been taxed for improvements
point out the irregularity of the boundaries
within which all lands are assessed, refer
ence being made to the fact that some
tracts that would be equally benefited with
those included have been exempted.
AS cause of action the complaint of the
brewing company will allege that it owns
lands upon which a lien will be created If
the assessments are completed 1t will be
averred that the lien thus created will cloud
the title, prohibit the company from con-
veying the land. etc. The law will be at
tackled as unconstitutional for reasons
stated above and the court will be asked
to enjoin the defendants from proceeding
further with the assessment proceedings;
There is still another objection which
will be raised. Under the act of 1891 Great
ing the charter the powers now vested in
the park board are lodged in the Board or
Public Works. 1t will be averred that the
park law is in reality an amendment OF the
law of 1891, although 1t does not so purport
to be, and that instead of having been en-
acted as a separate law 1t ought to have
been enacted as an amendment to Section
SO of the act of 1891. The Constitution says
that the act revised or section AMENDED 3i
shall be set forth and published at full
length" The section of the charter re-
ferred to says that the Board or Public
Works shall have power to condemn hire
or estate personal
property needed by such city for any pub
lie purpose" Whether this means exclu-
SiVe power and whether the park law con-
flicts with it is said to be a question for
the courts. The park law does not contain
the usual clause repeating confllctlng laws
1t IS said that the Supreme Court has al
ready rendered decision in what Is known
as the Criminal Court case. which might
save the park law. No tenure of office was
provided. The Supreme Court held 1t was
the intention of the Legislature to pass
constitutional law with a four,year tenure
of office. The first section of the park law
creates the department of public WORKS;
provides the number of commissioners and
that they shall serve without pay. Inc
next section simply provides for the organi-
cation of the board and provides now their
successors shall be appointed. Five mem
three four and five years, respectively
Successors were to be appointed by the
mayor one each year, to serve for I'VE
years. 1t is said if this section were de-
clared unconstitutional because of the five
year tenure, the park law would be in lire
with the Criminal Court case ana that the
court would hold that as no constitutional
term of service had been designated, 1t
should be four years. >.
To this it is objected however that if
the section were stricken out no method
of perpetuating the board would remain, as
striking out the section would carry with it
the authority vested in the mayor to APP
point a commissioner each year.
The plaintiff will contend that there Is no
de facto board, as the one and two-year
commissioners have served out their terms
leaving but two whose term comes within
the Constitution. the three and four-year
commissioners. Successors to the first two
have been appointed for five years. The
fifth commissioner was appointed for hVe
years in the first instance so that there
are but two remaining who have constitu-
tional terms yet to serve. majority of
the board is required to constitute quorum
for the transaction of business.
Mr. Daniels was considering other points
late yesterday and had not finished the
draft of the complaint He thought II would
he ready to file this morning.