Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-05-18
TEST TAX FERRET LAW
Tax Dodsine Case Brought up
From Jasper County Of
Great Importance.
Arguments Will Cover Every
Phase Of the Tax Laws
Constitutionality.
Decision Will Affect Many coun-
ties and Involves Large
Amount Of Taxes.
pecial to Times-Republican.

ton the law under winch lne lax lelIelS
are operating in the various counties OF
Iowa. The first of the famous tax fer
ret cases to reach the supreme court was
submitted this morning on the printed
arguments of counsel without oral ar
gument. The case submitted Is from
Jasper county. The lower court. Judge
A. II. Dewey sitting. decided in favor of
the constitutionality of the law and the
Regularity of the proceedings The JAS
per county case has some features not |
common to all the cases, but it is so
complicated as to cover practically all |
the others and all possible combinations
which might be made against the law
1t is the case of Henry Galusha, county
treasurer. against Mathilde Wendt, ex-
ecutrix of the estate of August Wendt.
The deceased was merchant of New
ton and also Interested in banking.
When the final report of the executrix
was made it disclosed that Wendt had
owned great deal of property which |
he had not returned for assessment. He
died in 1896 and final settlement of the
estate was made in 1897, before the new
law in regard to tax collections became
taxes from the estate and sued. the
defendants set up that the estate was
settled and claims against it could not
be filed after the settlement. This raises
some questions not in other cases; but
| the main reliance of the defendants, VINO
| appealed from Judge Dewey's decision.
is on the general nature of the proceeds
\ ngs which is similar in all counties.
| b no pff for e..t l,
many reasons why the county should
not collect the taxes on the hidden per-
sonal property, chief among the reasons
being that the statute of limitations APP.
plies to the taxing power, that the stat
ute is not in fact retroactive nor in
| tended to be, that if it is retroactive in
Itrary to the constitutions of the state and
of the United States. The brief for the
defendants declared the tax ferret law to
be Unconstitutional because 1t impairss
/ obligation of contracts, disposes of
4 property without due process of law,
that its provisions for interest and pen
atty create and produce unequal taxa
ton. that it increases penalties without
4 notice. that it is contrary to public poll
+ icy and opens up plain avenues for eX-
tortion and blackmail and injustice, that
q it's provisions for penalties are criminal
and ex-post facto laws. that it violates
4 the fundamentals of justice and good
| government, etc. In short, the law is
4 attacked as a monstrosity fit only for
4 the dark ages. In the arguments as
4 presented by the attorneys much space
i Is devoted to the question of whether or
rot the state is barred from going back
to list property before hid from the as
i sors. The property owner contends that
i the taxation of this property was an adj
4 Judication of the amount of taxes due,
that what the assessor did followed by
the action of the equalizing board is a
bar to the present action. that inasmuch
i as the taxpayer is forever bound by the
decision of the equal2ing board 50 the
county and state ought to be so bound.
TO this part of the argument the at
:orneys for the county treasurer Offer
"A the suggestion that an assessment by
the treasurer under the tax ferret Law is
not in fact a reopening of the decision
by tax officers by which the valuation
of taxable property has been fixed and
taxes collected under a subsequent stat
ute. This suit is for tax on moneys
fraudulently concealed from the asses
SCR and for such cause not listed or as
sessed. The suit is not brought upon an
insufficient levy and assessment of
taxes. No part of the property Withheld
was revealed. disclosed or unveiled te
any taxing officer. II was the duty of
the defendants to list to the assessor al
property. They pretended thus to list
$ their property, the assessor admins
> tered to them the oath as required by
/; the statute. they swore in each instance
; that they had given in a fun, true ant
i correct inventory of all the property
: which they were required by law to list;
yet at the same time they withheld large
l amounts of money and credits not dis
closed to the assessor. Because say
the attorneys for the treasurer '.of this
: exercise of such diligence the assessor
: failed to discover the property on ac-
Z count of this crafty conceaiment by
those who should have listed the same
: and the board of review was duped anc
deceived by the duplicity, fraud and I'M
\ position thus practiced upon them, OPP
q posing counsel contend the rights (?'
: acquired under these continuous acts ar,
! accrued and vested and conclusiv,
I against the plaintiff. Such Imposition
: is not tolerated by law
e On the other question which is made
e leading, that of the alleged unconstitu
y tionality of the law because 1t is retro
active in its effect. the attorneys for tn,
y tax dodgers grow eloquent. They de
y clare that what the assessing officers d,
creates vested right and the statute o
limitations runs against 1t. The worl
OF the board of equalization Is judg
ment and the legislature has no power t,
: destroy judgments Of courts and othe
. bodies with judicial powers. at is tn
) browning glory" say the attorneys, 20
i n civilized state that 1t does nothing TO
e mere vengeance. Its face IL turned eve
= toward the future. 1t does not deal ii
!, the back alleys of selfish spite. 1t make
: II as easy as possible for man to be
good citizen. 1t fixes exemptions an,
limitations. Every crime known in TIL
: state except murder has its fixed limit
: for prosecution, and it would appea
reasonably just that taxpayer shout,
receive some consideration and the ben
eft of long established limitations
= The trouble with this argument Is, a
- indicated by the attorneys for the treas
&c urer that 1t is an argument for tax
o dodger and not taxpayer. The tax
l. rayer is protected. but the attack on tn
:,