The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-11
RICHMOND CASES FAIL
MAI. LACEY'S TAX FERR ETING WILL
PROFIT HIM NOTHING.
Dickinson GS Co. Had Merely Handled
the MOrtgages-State Board Had
Right to Investigate.

The case of the Richmond alleged tax
dodgers was tried before the State Board
of Tax Commissioners yesterday and pc
tered out completely. Maj w. NJ. Lacey
had been employed by the commissioners
of Wayne county as a tax ferret and
thought he had dug up 81, 500 900 of notes
and mortgages that escaped taxation.
These securities, he charged, were owned
by j. j. Dickinson & Co., the Union Trust
Company and the Morrison estate. The To-
cal board of review had ignored Lacey's
demand that these securities be placed
upon the duplicate and he had appealed to
the State Tax Board. The defendants
claim that the State board had no juris-
diction, because the local board had never
cited them to appear. The attorney gen.
eral made q ruling on the subject yesterday
morning to the effect that the local board
could not rob the State board of jurisdic-
ton by neglect of it's duty.
The first point raised in the case was the
question of jurisdiction. The board referred
this to the attorney general, who gave an
oral opinion, as follows:
1T is undoubted that this board has no
original jurisdiction to assess property, ex-
cept IN instances such as railroads, tele-
graph lines, telephone lines, seeping-car
companies and express companies which
run into more counties than one and that
all jurisdiction over the assessment of prop
erty other than that must be appellate in
its nature. The statute clearly so reads and
the decision OF the Supreme Court upon the
attempted action by this board, in previous
years, emphasizes and makes clear that
which perhaps, as it seemed to me- did not
need any effort to make it clear. 1t is
equally clear that this board has appellant
jurisdiction under the system of law that
was adopted in 1891. 1t was clearly the in
tentiOn of the Legislature to confer upon
this board, by appeal and review in those
cases of which it had not original jurisdic
ton, and by the exercise of original juriS-
dictlon that was conferred upon it over all
the operations of the tax system in the
State of Indiana, and the power of this
board, as 1t seems TO me, is not to be CIR
cumscribed or limited, by the influence of
particular individuals upon local assessing
officers so that the local assessing officers
refused to comply with their duty under
the law When the claim was filed before
the County Board of Review by Mr.. Lacey,
against the Dicknsons, the County Board
of Review ought to have issued the notice.
1t was in fragrant defiance of the law that
the County Board Of Review refused to
do it, and it seems to me that would be
derelict of my duty If l did not advise this
board, and this board derelict of it's duty
if it encouraged any such fragrant defiance
of law by any of the lower assessing Off
Gals.
Il do not believe that laws are to be
evaded. They are to be obeyed. And when
a proper complaint is filed before local
assessing officer or board, it is the duty of
that board to obey the law and issue the
notice and take jurisdiction and make a
uGClSlOH, anu Tie pOWGI VI bhlo 40
not to be prevented by a defiance of the
law by any local officer or local assessing
board. Notice, of course, is essential IN any
proceeding where the rights of citizens are
to be determined. The notice provided Tor
in Section ia ought to have been given
by the County Board of Review: IL was
not given. That could not deprive this
board Of the right to exercise its appellate
power over the matter of that assessment
The only course that remalneo 70 , TINS
board, as it seemed to me, was, having
jurisdiction of the matter or an appear, put
not having jurisdiction of the person. be-
cause of the dereliction of the county 9TH
Gals shall issue 81 notice in accordance with
the provision contained IN Section ia,
which, construed with Section 129. gives TO
this board the power to cause that notlce
to be issued in a case of which the law
gives to it Jurisdiction, and the law gives
to it jurisdiction on appeal
II think, therefore, the board mas 1uriS-
diction of this appeal, and ought not to be
deferred from exercising that jurisdiction
by the threat that It will take long tlIne,
or hard work or diligent effort, any more
than il ought to be deferred because OF the
dereliction of the local officials II 1t nave
not jurisdiction it would seem 20 me eX-
traordinary that jurisdiction could pc de-
MED by the wrongful act of local oTncerS,
and if it has not, the record should be put
in such condition as that the attelliio on ' t
the General Assembly should be called TO
an omission of the law, II there be an
omission in the law, so 1t might be rectl-
fed. l think the board ought 70 in9u IRE
into the assessment on this appeal and see
if there is any omitted property, ana IL II
finds there is such, require it to be as
Sessed."
The board proceeded with the caseof Dick
inson & Co. The defendants had brought
up three trunks full of books and papers,
and were fortified at every point to show
that they had long ago disposed of the
mortgages and notes charged to them.
After they had proceeded well into, The case
both this appeal and that against the Union
Trust Company, which does business in the
same way, were dismissed. That against
the Morrison estate will be called Thurs
day
case the fact developed that Major Lacey
had in a great many Instances been mis-
led by the fact that Dickinson a Co. re-
leased many mortgages which they had
sold Immediately after loaning the money;
The fact that they had released them led
saili - All the time II is likely that this
will lead to a recommendation by the board
that the Legislature pass law requiring
that the transfer of mortgages be recorded
lust as the transfer of real estate.
Mad-Dog Scare ON DOrman street.
Police Sergeant Corrigan was called to