The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-09-09
CLOSEOFTAX ARGUMENTS
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CASE
TAKEN UNDER AMUSEMENT.
Plaintiffs Side Presented to the Court
Another Suit Growing Out of
Irvington improvements.

miSSionerS was concluded yesterday even
ing before Judges McMaster and Carter. Of
the Superior Court. After Attorney Cen
eral Taylor completed his argument in the
morning the court heard the railroad COM
pany's side of the case. Deputy Attorney
General Moores closed the case for the
state.
IF this injunction is granted said At
torney General Taylor in the course of his
argument, then no assessment can be
made by any officer or board The Supreme
Court OF the United States within ten
months has decided this proposition. What
does this mean? 1t means that In forty
seven counties out Of ninety-two in the
State no assessment can be certified against
this company. How the court become
travelling court to find out how much or
how little the decrease in the Pennsylvania
Railroad assessment should be? Why, look
at the Indianapolis &, Vincennes Railroad
feature Of the case. The bill admits that
the lands and lots along that road are as
sessed at 20 per cent. of their real value
and yet this plaintiff offers to pay but 66
per cent. of the assessment against il, or 4
per cent. less than the company admits the
farmers and lot owners will have to pay
This is a sample of all of the cases. If this
road company can enjoin the county au-
ditors in all Of the ninety-two counties in
the State from placing on the duplicates
the assessment against these railroads"
Mr.. Taylor declared that the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company has no higher rights
than the humblest lot owner in the State
If the petition was granted the entire as
sessment of the State might be tied up. He
charged that 1t would be a monstrous doc
trine for the railroad company to be per-
mitted to go into court in one county and
enjoin the collection of taxes in all the
counties Of Indiana. Il ask the court to
condemn this practice" he said, in closing
his argument.
RAILROAD COMPANY'S SIDE.
John G. Williams, for the railroad com
pany, followed the attorney general The
ground for relief he asserted, lis that
property in this State other than railroad
property has been Intentionally underval-
ued, and that the state board assessed rail-
road property at what is believed to he the
full cash value thereof, and, although ad-
Vlsed fully as to the undervaluation Of the
other property, failed and refused to equal
lie railroad property with this othnr I:op-
erty. The Constitution requires a uniform
assessment; the statute requires all prop
and enjoins upon the state board the duty
OF equaliz1ng railroad property with lands
me intentional differentiation of property
being a violation of the Constitution and
the statute, must be regarded as fraud of
such a character as will invaldate an as
y SeSSment or other property at its full cash
saiue. DISHONEST performance of official
duty is rank fraud, and proper relief will
always be granted any one damaged by
sucn fraud. No attack is made on the tax
valid ministration of those laws by the
persons charged with the duty of faithfully
aa or ms them that furnishes the basis
TACT is involved in the present argument
Inc Inc demurrers confess the allegations of
the complaints. The court has, then, TO
determine whether the allegations i'm the
complaints present cases wherein equity
should afford relief. The complaint charges
mat all the property in the State other
than railroad property has been Intention
ally assessed at not to exceed two-thirds
or It's fair cash value, and that railroad
value. These allegations are, for the rur-
pose OF argument, admitted to be true and
IL must, therefore. be. plain to the court
that that such fraud has been perpetrated as
will render void the assessment of plain
TN property. The plaintiff only asks re-
facts stated. They Stand ready = to" paw sty
taxes on two-thirds valuation of their
Pickens, who also spoke for the railroad
company. He had great pile of law books
on the table in front of him and frequently
quoted from the authorities. Mr.. Pickens
said the Pennsylvania Railroad COMPANY
according TO the calculations of the state
LAX Board. would have TO pay on it's s35-
WeWV worth OF property in Indiana one
third more taxes than would be paid by the
owners OF real estate really worth S35 900 900
In round numbers. said Mr.. Pickens, the
taxes on the Pennsylvania Company's prop
erty In Indiana would amount to $500 OI0
Inc attorney said it was not alleged that
the tax officers made this kind of an as
sessment with a deliberate attempt To com
init fraud. but the undervalua ton was made
In violation of the statute. 1t was the duty
the lands of the State had been assessed
at DO 2-3 per cent. of its true value to as
sess tne property of the Pennsylvania Rail-
road Company IN the same way
THE CLOSING ARGUMENT.
Deputy Attorney General Moores. in clos
ing for the State, said: 1.-THE taxing mower
is essential to the existence of any govern
ment. 1t is in its nature political. and
courts have always interfered with it with
great reluctance. To stop the taxes is to
make government impossible, and only as
last resort have courts of equity inter
fered with the taxing power, and. until
the Tennessee railroad cases. they have
never gone further than TO prevent the col
lection of taxes unlawfully assessed nv en-
joining the collecting officers Until these
cases they have never interfered with the
peal is granted from tax boards TO the
courts. In Indiana ii has never been con-
sidered that courts. should concern them
selves With the valuation of property for
purposes of taxation. A special tribunal
has been created to determine such cues
tons, and under our law its decisions are
final. Again and again has the Supreme
Court or Indiana and that of the United
States said that 'one of the reasons why a
court should not interfere is that il has no
power to apportion the tax or 10 make a
new assessment, or to direct another 10 be
made by the proper officers OF the State
These officers and the manner in which
they shall exercise their functions are
wholly beyond the power OF the court when
so acting. The levy OF taxes is not ju-
dicial function The law requires the board
10 prepare table showing appraisements
OF all classes of property and that this
shall be certified to the auditor of state
who shall certify to the various counties
| This must be done by a certain day. after
which the board has no power. If the re-
straining order in this case had been served
| in time on the board no corporation taxes
/ OF any sort could have been certified dowr
and for the year 1892 and all corpora.
| tons taxed by the state board would have
\ escaped taxation. III an injunction should
have been granted IL could have been prop.
| erly granted only against ministerial on
| GERS charged with the collection OF taxes.
/ THE Pennsylvania Company does no
complain that its appraisement Is excess
/ i've. IL admits that IL Is made In con
formty withNthe laws. BY its silence IL ad
| mits that all other railroads and transpor