The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-06
A TAX FERRET'S CASES
STATE BOARD CONSIDERS ITS JURIS-
DICTION IN RICHMOND AFFAIR.
General Thinks 1t May Make
an Original InVestigatiOn-A Vim
cennes Mans Mortgages.

"A question came up before the State Tax
Board yesterday that will test the ability
of the tax machinery of the State to bripg
to light personal property, for the local
Board of Review does not happen to be in
sympathy with the effort. In what are
known as the Richmond tax ferret cases,
the question of jurisdiction was raised, and
it was such a knotty one that the board
did not proceed further with any of these
cases except hat of John j. Jackson, of
Cambridge City, Who depended upon other
points for a decision, though he also claimed
advantage of this one. Major Lacey was
employed by the Wayne County Commas
sioners as a tax ferret upon the agreement
that he should ave % per cent. of all taxes
collected upon such hidden property as he
should bring to view. Major Lacey claims
to have dug up about 81, 500, coo of notes,
mortgages, bonds and other securities hat
had escaped taxation. Some Of this wealth
belonged to the Westcott family, who do
business as the Union Trust Company;
others belonged to the Morrison estate, adj
ministered by James II. Hibberd; others to
Dickson & Co., and others to Jackson.
Major Lacey demanded of the County
Board of Review that it call these people
before it and investigate the subject of this
hidden property. The board declined to
issue the notice, and Major Lacey himself
issued the notice. The local Board of Re-
view declined to pay any attention to the
cases, and Major Lacey appealed to the
state board.
A personal notification was mailed to the
parties in interest by the state board that
the cases would be heard yesterday. They
were on hand. and were represented by
IL - C+,,I-, nlA-- -
that the state board could acquire any
jurisdiction after the county board had
ignored the matter, and the attorney gem
eral was called upon for an opinion upon
the subject. He delivered an oral opinion
to the effect that the state board could take
original jurisdiction of the matter under a
fair Interpretation of the law, and the
board entered an order directing the sheriff
of Wayne county to issue a regular sum
mons for the parties to appear next Tues
day. 1t is not unlikely that the defendants
will seek to enjoin the state board from
taking up the appeal and thus test the
question IN the courts.
While Mr.. jackson took advantage of this
point also, he had further matters to pre-
sent, and the board heard his case. He
showed by the books of the bank and his
which the mortgage record of the county
showed that he held had been obtained
with the money of the bank and assigned
to the bank as soon as they were made. 1t
was simply the banks method OF loaning
money through its cashier.
The case OF the Underwood Manufacture
ing Company, of Wabash, brought down a
large number of people from that city. The
company had returned its property at
SIG, 80, and the county assessor had in
creased this to $25, sos. Then the Board OF
Review made a further increase to So, 900.
The company maintained that this was an
unfair assessment, while on behalf of the
county board it was stated that this was
arrived at by estimating the capital stock
and bills receivable of the company.
Almost the whole morning sesSion was
Plante, of V~incennes. Mr.. La Plante is a
wealthy capitalist of Vincennes, and the
local board had added to his return $1,000 Of
mortgage notes and 5000 of personal Sc
curity notes. His attorney admitted that
Mr.. La Plante probably had $4,000 or 5000
in notes that had not been returned, but
declared that the increase made by the
local board was out of all reason. He
stated that several of the larger notes had
been paid off. The county assessor was
present with a list of Mr.. La Plante's notes.
and the latter's attorney endeavored TO
make him tell where he got his information.
but the board decided that it was not neces-
Sary to answer the question. Is. NJ. viii
loughby represented the local board, and
when Mr.. La Plante was on the stand he
asked him in detail about each one Of these
notes. The witness admitted that OF the
$25,0 600 listed SO, 500 was good. His tax re-
turn had been but for $4,000. The attorney
asked how he came TO make such a mis-
take in his return. Mr.. La Plante replied
that he did not know. as he always en-
6eq NOTod TO nav full taxes.