Omaha daily bee., 1902-02-12

ANIAAANAANA ~ v
city Attorneys Argument.
The areument Of City Attorney Connell
occupied an hour Of the afternoon session.
He said in part:
In view OF the decision OF the court that
the value Of the property Of the franchised
corporations Is not to be considered, the
real question for the court now is whether
a hearing had been granted the plaintiffs
on their complaint that the valuation was
below the 40 per cent basis and should be
raised
He then proceeded to make reference to
the records introduced in evidence, showing
that a time had been fixed for a hearing
Of the complaints against the corpora
tions; that each OF the corporations had
been notified OF such hearing and that in
pursuance Of such notice the corporations
and the complainants had been heard. He
called special attention to the judgment
of the board of equalization disposing OF
the eighty eight complaints and determin-
ihe that the valuation Of the property OF
the franchlsed corporations should remain
as fixed and determined by the board Of re-
view. He claimed that Mr.. Mcintosh had
utterly failed to meet these points, but had
rested his case entirely on four PROPOSE
tions. First, that the people were with
him; second, that the newspapers were
with him; third, that the supreme court
was with him. as evidenced by the order
permitting him to file his application for
mandamus; fourth, that God was with him,
as evidenced on every land by the wishes
Of godspeed.
LAS to the first said Mr.. Connell, II
claim that all good citizens favor an equal
and Just assessment OF property for taxa
tlon, but / don't believe any citizens hav-
ing omaha's interest at heart would favor
the reputation OF the bonds and coupons
of the city which are soon to come due,
and which will greatly injure the credit OF
the city IL not paid at maturity. He
continued:
Considers Motive Misunderstood.
Nor do 1 believe that IL the people of
| Omaha understood the motive actuating
this contest and the injury II Will do the
| city. they would favor his action. IL Woufo
be a case Of enduring the Ills they have
rather than fly to those they Know not OF,
Az 70 the p~.e% dSsd nv nsrtisen feeiing
and the court cannot take cognizance OF
their articles. e to the supreme court; !
fairly stated all the facts in his application
for mandamus, the court never would nave
as to this one, Mr.. Mclntoch has purposely
omitted to state some facts that were
proper and necessary for a Just dsterm rafer-
ence to the Godspeed which he claims has
been extended to him on every side would
and Sapphire, who had fatal Judgment
pronounced against them, ,not LOT wlHiul
lying, but for keeping back the truth.
City Attorney Connell then again re-
ferred to his original contention, that the
only question before the court was whether
the subject matter OF the FIVE new COM
plants Of the plaintiffs had or had not
been heard, considered and determined by
the council in connection with the eighty
eight complaints which included the nine
fled by Morton aud Shriver, and which re-
lated solely to the raising OF valuations OF
the i've ,franchised corporations.
Attorney Mcintosh argued the Connell
motion for nearly an hour Monday after
noon and yesterday morning he continued
that argument from $3.50 until IL o'clock
noon. 77r ~ %.
=, object of His Argument.
In his argument Mr.. Mcintosh again went
over some of the ground previously covered
and read innumerabie authorities which
we're not confined to thoseAof Nebraska. He
devoted Ais principal e~ffortito showing that
his clients had never yet had a hearing on
their complaints. that they were entitled
to be allowed such a hearing, that 1t is not
mandatory that the council pass the levy
at the FIRST meeting In February, but that
it would be a great error to pass 1t as 1t
now is, leaving ground for endless future
suits on the alleged fact that it would be
void. He said:
<."Nothine had. been adjudicated up to
the time OF the nling OF the Morton-Shriver
complaints and the whole matter. being
still before the courts, was still open.
But suppose the council had overruled all
previous. complaints. That would not con-
stitute an adjudication Of these, because 10
such adjudication. the parties or their
priyys must be the same; they must sue
in the same right; they must set forth
the same ground as a basis for asking the
relief that they do; and they must ask the
same relief. AS to the first, the parties
are not the same, because Morton and
Shriver are now demanding hearing ON
these complaints In behalf OF all the tau
payers of the city, not in behalf OF the
two themselves, IS WIS the case before.
They do not sue in the same right, for
ShrIyer fled the others as a property
owner, They do. not set forth the same
ground. for now they contend that the
basis of taxation assessment Is 40 per cent
and the corporations are not assessed at
that much, whereas the previous conten-
ton was simply q complaint by Shriver
that pieces OF his property, and by Morton
that pieces Of his property were, compared
with the coTporations, assessed dispropor-
. tionately. And we are not suing for the
same relief, for the old request was simply
for q raise Of assessments. but We ask that
an investigation be made; that the cor
p~oration officers be compelled to produes
their books and that the assessments be
raised to full 40 per cent Of the fair cash
value as SO asccrtained.
No Hearing in These Complaints.
1T say that nobody ever had a hearing on
a complaint such as those that were filed
January IS. The proceedings Of January
II were. it Is shown right on the records,
divided In time between the Real Estate
exchange and the corporations and was
practically nothing more than arguments
on e demurrer to the formers petition be-
cause OF it's form. And. surely. an adjudi-
cation on a form OF procedure 10 not an
adjudication Of the merits of the complaint.
/, The merits Of the latter cannot be gone
into, and when. these people come In here
7 and set up the proceedings Of the 18th as
q hearing on these complaints OF my clients
they are as false to their duty as were