The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-10
INSURANCE CASE AGAIN
THE STATE FILES A BRIEF ON A Pc
TITION FOR REHEARING.
Attorney General Declares that the
Opinion of the Supreme Court
Is Not Good Law.

Attorney General Ketcham will to-day
file a brief on the petition of the Board of
Tax Commissioners for a rehearing of the
life insurance tax case recently decided by
the Supreme Court. 1t will be remembered
that the court stood three to two against
the proposition that the tax board had
legal right to list insurance policies for the
purpose of taxation. A leading point in the
prevailing opinion was that the Legislature
had failed to specify insurance policies as
being property subject to taxation, and that
the tax board being an administrative body
could not supply the deficiencies of the
legislative branch of the government. The
case is one of wide Importance not only on
account of the extensive interests directly
concerned but also for the reason that the
questions involved are far reaching.
POLITELY INTRODUCED.
The attorney generals brief for a rehear-
ing contains much interesting reading. In
his preliminary statement he says
1.-The minds of the judges certainly came
into contact fully and completely before the
conclusion stated in the prevailing opinion
was reached and announced. and it is,
therefore, with the greatest hesitation and
no little embarrassment that we feel con-
strained by q sense of duty and the i'm
portance to the public interests of the ques-
tons decided, to present a petition for re-
hearing and argue again the questions pre-
sented by this appeal.
ut is not a matter of such overwhelming
Importance that life insurance policies shall
be assessed for taxation. The revenues OF
the State will still be collected and its ex-
penSeS betrayed. 1t is not possible but that
under any system of taxation that may be
devised administered a great deal OF
property and value will escape bearing It's
fair share OF the public burdens. No system
of laws or administration has ever been de-
vised, or ever will be, that will be alb
Solutely perfect. If the value that there is
or, rather, is currently supposed to be-in
life insurance Is not properly subject TO
taxation as held in the prevailing opinion,
that simply means that the burdens which
ought, under any system Of ad valorem
taxation, to rest equally upon all-the high
and the low, the rich and the poor, the Tor
tunate and the anfortunate--Shall be shifted
from the shoulders of those who are lucky
or far sighted enough to sequester from the
tax assessors gaze and the tax gatherers
reach, their values to some other species
OF property held by some other citizen that
cannot be SO readily hidden
1.-THE crying evil and injustice OF any SyS-
tenn of taxation is that so much of value in
it's shrinking modesty escapes the prying
eyes OF the township assessor, thus evadlng
taxation and placing additional burdens on
other property that cannot hide. If this
were the only effect to result from the
opinion in this case we greatly :, doubt onn
ing this court with an application for
further consideration of this case.
'It has seemed to us, however, that IN
announcing the principle which it was COM
PEELED to announce in order to reach the
conclusion which 1t did reach, this court
has laid down a doctrine that Is so far
reaching in it's results, so contrary to the
obvious intention and purpose and the pre-
else words of the Constitution, so destruc,
tive of the duty imposed upon the General
Assembly of securing a Just valuation Tor
taxation of all property, that we feel con.
strained to again invite the attention OF
this court to the questions presented by
the record and passed upon. And it is of
the utmost Importance that a constitu-
ka1 Co.. flAfr
protection. and the barriers thus erected by
the people against favoritism, Partially
and the laying of unequal burdens, should
not be swept away by judicial construction
or administrative inaction."
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.
After this strong Introductory the brief
declares that the propositions substantially
enumerated by the court are that the unre-
stricted right to select property as the sub
ject of taxation is an inherent legislative
power without reference to constitutional
commands, and that Section 1, Article TO-
of the Constitution, requiring regulations
to be presented for a just valuation for
taxation by all property except such as may
be especially exempted by law is not a
limitation on the legislative power. These
propositions, the brief insists, are not law
and are fraught with dangerous conse-
quenceS to the public veal if adhered to-
Under such ruling the farmer, if he came
to hold the balance of power in the Legs-
lature might select as subjects for taxation
bonds, mortgages, ETC., and farm property
being thus eliminated from the schedule
would under the courts ruling escape tax
alton. Money lenders or railroad owners, in
case of their obtaining control of the Leg
islature might pass a law which would not
provide for the taxation of their property
and thus ii would by indirection escape tax
alton.
1t must be conceded, continues the brief.
that a law directly exempting a species of
property from taxation would be unconsti-
tutional and it would be the duty of the
assessors to tax the property notwithstand-
ing such law. The Supreme Court of the
United States has decided this point. The
brief then gives list of instances in which
property is not specifically mentioned for
taxation, but which is taxed nevertheless.
among them being money in the hands of
banks
WHY COURT IS INCORRECT
Four propositions are then enlarged upon
in the brief to show that the decision by
the court is incorrect. These propositions
are: First, does the Constitution require
the Legislature to prescribe regulations for
the taxation of all property except what
may be exempted for municipal and similar
purposes: second, has the Legislature pre-
scribed these regulations third, is life in
surance property in the meaning of the
Constitution; fourth, has the Legislature
furnished appropriate machinery for as
certaining the value of this particular kind
OF property for assessment and taxation?
The brief contends that all of these prop
ositionS are to be answered in the affirma-
tive, and that a rehearing should be granted
lin order that the court may rectify the
ror it has fallen into" The propositions
are argued at great length.
Hack Driver Atl<fnsOn's Suit.