The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-13
DESPITE FEDERAL COURT
STATE TAX BOARD RAISES A VALUA-
TION TO A HALF MILLION.
Attorney Generals Opinion on Judge
manufacturing COmpany's Case.

There is a prospect that the Governor.
the secretary of state the auditor, Colonel
| l. N. Walker and Thomas b. Buskirk. con-
| shutting the State Board OF Tax Commits
| sioners, and the attorney general, the Of
fetal legal advisor of the board, may 30 to
Jail The board yesterday increased the as
| sessment of the Indiana Manufacturing
| Company from Sc, 500 to 100000 in direct
eontravention of an injunction of Judge
Baker, Of the Federal Court, though the
Injunction was issued against the local tax
officers, and not against the state BOARD,
unless the wording OF the decree can be
construed so as to bring them in. The de-
cree commands all the local tax officers
and all persons acting by, through or Un-
der the authority of Them" and this Ian
guage is the only point that can be found
that might catch the state board. Judge
! Baker decided two years ago that patent
rights were not taxable in the suit brought
by this company, and when the local board
or review this year assessed the capital
stock OF the company, which is invested in
| patents, its members were cited for con-
tempt and only got out from under ty
undoing their action. The state board act
ed upon a very carefully prepared opinion
by the attorney general.
In answering the inquiry of Che board the
attorney general says In my opinion it
IS your duty to ascertain from the facts
oeIore you the value % of the intangible
property or the company; ~ of the CAPT
tai stock in excess of the value of the tam
glDle property; and thereupon to assess
such company such value when ascer-
tanned; of the tangible property only, in
the event that it shall exceed the value of
the capital stock and of the capital stock in
addition, in the event that it shall appear
nn
of the tangible property.
The Indiana Manufacturing Company
IL appears is corporation organized I'M
der the manufacturing and mining laws
of the State and Sections q and "A of the
act 90 on March ., 1871 Sections 49l and 1882
or the revision of 1894 make provision for
the assessment of this character of prop
erty, and the appeal having been brought
before you and imposed upon you the duty
of making such assessment, your assess
ment should be in accordance with said
latter section. When you have so ascer-
tanned and assessed your assessment should
be certified to the auditor of state to be
by him certified to the auditor of Marion
county,
IN VIEW OF INJUNCTION.
The attorney general declares that ordi-
narily his opinion should have stopped
there, but in view of the copy of the in
junction filed before the board and the
statements made by the company he goes
into a discussion of his reasons. He says
ufacturing Company that no value can be
assessed against it for taxation beyond the
mere value of it's tangible property for the
reasons that such action is in violation of
the decree of injunction referred to in its
statement, and is consequently a contemp.
of the United States Circuit Court, and that
IT Is IN violation of the Constitution of the
United States present for consideration
very grave questions, that are not to be
settled by simple reference to the statutes
a on Tho ~ Df 4s1ra
III either of these claims is we'll founded
then beyond question the board should not
assess as directed by the statutes of In
diana, because the federal Constitution and
laws are supreme. 1t is clear that no per-
son, and especially that no officer who Is
the creature of the law and whose first
oath is to support the Constitution of the
United States, ought to violate or attempt
to violate or evade either the Constitution,
peteht lufisdlctlon. laws and the decree
or courts, he says, should be obeyed, not
violated or, evaded, and at this time,
especially when public attention is directed
TO, and, to some extent, criticism is made
or processes of Injunction, neither the
general should do anything in hostility to
or contempt of any orders or DEGREES of any
court that may be made against them. If
1T is supposed that any such decree is
erroneous the only proper method is to
question it by appeal to the Supreme Court
of the United States, and in the meantime
The first question the attorney general
seeks to determine IS lis the assessment
recommended to be, made in violation, of
the decree referred to?' He says that
the bill filed in the case was g bill to re-
strain the collection of the taxes assessed
aga against the company for, the years 1892,
1893 and 1894 Pending the litigation the
county board of review assessed the prop
erty of the company for the year 1895. After
the time during which the board was per-
mitted to sit and it had adjourned and was
consequently "functus officio' by a sup
Elemental bill the validity of the assessment
fnV fR1tA
and an injunction asked against the col
lection of the taxes upon that assessment.
At that time no levy had been made by the
County commissioners. this levy being
made at the September term. and con-
sequently no taxes had been extended on the
tax duplicate. All that had been done was
alton. which in the ordinary course of law
would ripen into levies, extension upon the
act of the officials charged with the per-
Torrance of such duties. and it was to en-
attended and 0laced mon the dunIicsfe
that the supplemental bill was filed
JUDGE BAKER AND THE FUTURE.
The attorney general quotes from Judge
Bakers decree and says that this injunc-
ton was and is responsive and must be
construed with reference to the averments
of the BILL It was nowhere asked in the
bill or the supplemental bill that with re-
spect to the assessment for taxation of the
property for any year subsequent to 1895,
injunction should issue was any
such in fact issued. It could not be known
at the time Of the filing of the bill or at
the time of entering the decree that Con-
gress might Motif it deemed it proper or
necessarily appropriate legislation
authorize the taxation of this specie OF
value. 1t would have been extraordinary
pleading in a bill in equity to attempt to
forecast the future and ask that an in5 C.
ton should be granted in perpetuity upon
the then existing state of facts, which
would become inapplicable by reason of
subsequent congressional legislation. De-
reference to the law and facts as they ex
list at the time and not with reference to
what they may be at some time in the
future. On this line of reasoning he con-
the pleadings and it's express terms is linn
tied TO the collection of taxes that had
been levied in the years 1892 1893 and 1894,
and that would be levied in 1895 on the as
sessmentS that were complained of.
The next question taken up is whether an
injunction against township and county as
SCISSORS, county board of review, county
auditor and treasurer. can be construed to
be injunction against the state board
under the designation land their successors
junction cannot be construed as an injunc-
ton against the state board either as a
body or as individuals unless they are
reached In law as successors in office"
The offices of township assessor, county
assessor, auditor and treasurer, are con-
tinung office; the two members of the
county board of review, not county officers.
are not continuing officers but are APP
pointed annually by the judge of the Cir
cult Court and act for only twenty days
except in the years when real estate is to
be assessed when they act as members of
the board for thirty days. Their duties and