The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-10-26

PERSONAL TAX LAW SUIT.
Peters Estate in Litigation With the
Commissioners.

What promises 10 be- a bitterly contested
test cast regarding the validity OF what is
known as the personal tax law Bro the
District Of Columbia was instituted yes
terday afternoon I'm the District Supreme
Court by John G. HeaId, George T.. Ham
ilton. and vs.. u. Baker Committee of
Eugene Peters, against the District Of
Columbia. The committee ask that
writ Of certiorari be issued by the court
requiring the District 10 certify immedl-
aJeIy copies OF every part Of their records
relating I'm any manner 10 the assess
men:s alleged 10 have been made against
the property embraced in Mr.. Peters
estate
The petition sets forth that the COM
mittee has received from the Commits
sioners a paper writing purportiug 90 De
an assessment OF the personal property
Of the estate iu question. which is valued
al $4,000, the notice Informing petition
ers that tho assessment s. made under
the act Of March g. IsII IL is further
stated thes no proper action has been
taken against ia. petitioners Dy the Com
misslouers, that the several acts of Con-
gr,sS under which action is attempted
are OF no effect lG law OF equity for the
p|Tp.s. " assessing anyone. ii is also
stated That. although LuE le Peters was
possessed az this property for many
years 30 Proceedings since ls4.. tine ds e.
OF tho aCI have been had To- enforce tho
payment. and that tIe whole charge as
du-a"iW and uHWHrTaut,l. and. b. e.
said, Was uaI made ID an officer with
power or authority Co represent the D.
| frlgl IL I- alleged that 100 right eE. s.
10 levy an assess msEt against the p-U-
sOIal property The court is asked 80
guaSu the assessment upon hearing
The petition TcCItcs that Eugene Peters
has been adJudged 20 be- Of uuSpuud mind
by a marshals jury, and upon tho report
% that body the above named persons
were appointed by the Supreme Court ~
charge Of his estate and person The
property assessed is principally personal
property, consisting Of stocks and bonds
anu mttu States bonds Of great value
For q long time prior 10 the appoint
meut Of the committee Eugene Peters. II
is said. was resident Of the District but
not uuiu September last was his personal
estate assessed. During that month. IL IS
stated. the Commissioners OF the District
sent 10 tLc meLosEs u the committee
7 named certain paDer alleging 20 De an
assessment Of the personal property OF
Eugene Peters valued at 500 90. TO this
Was added, Il is said. 80 per cent OF tho
alleged total value Of the property, MAX
ING due an assessment on personally AK
RTegatinB $500. 90 The notice Informed
the committee that the assessment was
made by virtue OF the act Of Congress OF
March 3. ltIl.
The committee alleges that no proper
action was taken by the Commission
ers o" any other person 90 assess them as
The holders Of The property Of Eugene
Peters Tor any personal TAX whatsoever.
IN Is further alleged that no person au-
thOrized by Congress. under the act OF
March 3, 1877, has taken any action 90 as
seSs = personal tax against "a. property
ana that no action was taken 10 add TO
the alleged assessment an adCIdOsal as
scssmcut OF % per cent
II is contended by the committee that
the several acts Of Congress under which
ihc District authorities arc pUrpOrtiug TO
act are OF no effect I'm equity or law so
far as they can be used for thu UurpoEe
OF aS-t sslGR the personal TAX upon any
one II is stated that there T. 40 one IA
the District AZ the present tIuls invested
WIN authority 10 lDgy such assessment
Tor personal tax that tl.' as-,ssU-ur Dur
porting 10 have been made was rot done
1 by proper officer and that ia, g. Is no
law M force By which m. District has
authority % make the record against the
property ~ Eugene Peters
In support Of tnls il is stated that. al
though Eugene Peters was the owner OF