Evening star., 1901-11-26
THE PERSONAL TAX LAW |
ITS VALIDITY AN ISSUE BEFORE
JUSTICE CLABAUGH.
Matter Comes Up Friday Upon Petit
tfOn I'm Interest of the Estate
of Eugene Peters.

Justice Clabaugh Of the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia will be called
Friday next to decide whether or not what
is known as "the personal tax law In the
District of Columbia is valid and legal.
The validity of this law Is called In question
in the case of John c. Heald, George E.
Hamilton and D. w. Baker. committee Of
the person and estate Of Eugene Peters,
lunatic, who filed petition In the Supreme
Court of the District about three weeks ago
in which the court Is asked to cancel an
assessment levied on certain personal prop
erty Of Peters on the ground, 1t is alleged.
that the assessment is invalid, Illegal and
was levied without authority Of law. and
because there was an overtaxation of the
property.
Upon consideration of the petition the
court issued writ Of certforari requiring
the District Of Columbia to certify to the
court a copy of all records in It's custody
relating In any manner to the assessment
referred to, together woth all papers and
records, advertisements, notices, etc, made
by the Commissioners. that relate In any
way to the property of Peters now in pos
session OF the petitioners.
The Districts Answer.
At late hour yesterday afternoon An
drew B. Duvall, attorney for the District,
and Edward H. Thomas. assistant attor-
ney, filed the answer and return of the Dis
trict to the petition and writ issued in the
case, which Is signed and sworn to by all
three Of the Commissioners. In their reply
the Commissioners recite their authority to
apply the revenues of the District to the
payment Of its expenses, and state that the
taxes sought to be Cancelled by this pro-
ceeding are taxes on personal property
which they are by law required to collect;
the collection Of which, at least in part, Is
absolutely essential to meet the existing de-
ficiency in the revenues of the District.
They further state that they are author
lied by law to levy tax Of $3.50 on each
800 Of personal property, except that which
is exempted for debts, and notice has been
given that they will do this by advertising
In the newspapers of this city. Every
trustee holding property in trust Is required
to make return of such property. Bat
the petitioners did not deliver such sched-
ule of personal property belonging to
Peters, and the assessor has never been ad-
V1Sed by them or Peters Of the actual cash
value of his personal property, nor has any
complaint been made to them that there
was in fact any generalization of his prop
erty.
Because of this neglect 1t became the
duty of the assessor, it Is claimed, from
the best information he could procure to
make an assessment and to increase it by
30 per cent of the amount so found. The
assessor called personally upon George E.
Hamilton, one of the petitioners, but he de-
clined to make any return as to the value
of the personal property in question.
Failed to Furnish Schedule.
The Commissioners also say that Peters
has never delivered to them any schedule
of his personal property, although he had
been in possession Of it for long time
prior to the present assessment. They say
that if the tax on personal property be in
valid several hundred thousand dollars an
nEally win be lost to the District. They
are advised that the tax is valid.
With the answer and return of the Dis
trfct was filed a motion to quash the writ
of certiorari, for the reason, among others
set forth, that the personal tax law is valid
and the tax was properly assessed, and for
other reasons appearing in the answer
made by the Commissioners.
Notice has been given the petitioners by
Attorneys Duvall and Thomas that chey
will call up the motion before Justice Cla-
baugh Friday next at 10 o'clock I'm, or as
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard