Omaha daily bee., 1902-03-13

and there IL no use OF quoting many author
tiles on that point"
Mr.. Webster then took a new tack. MOT
withstanding the fact said he, that the
city council and the Board OF Equalization
are made Up OF the same members, they
are separate and distinct bodies. just as
much so as though their personnel were
different. SO when the Board Of Equaliza-
tion adjourned sine die Il was dead, and
not to be resurrected by mandamus OF other
proceeding. The city council IL still in
existence, but the Board Of Equalization ia
q thing Of the past"
Court adjourned for a recess Of two
hours.
Referee QuOtes History.
Mr.. Webster, while engaged in citing au-
thorities tending to show that the Board
Of Equalization cannot be reconvened be-
cause 1t has adjourned sine die, was inter-
| rupted by Judge Ryan, who said:
ut is a matter of history that the legis-
lature OF this state sat as a board OF can
vassers to canvass the vote cast for the
new state constitution. After having An
ished their work the members declared the
constitution lacked the necessary number
OF votes and was therefore lost. They then
| adjourned sine die. Later the question was
raised that their work had not been prop
erly done. They we're ~reconvened; they re-
canvassed the vote, reversed their first
finding and declared the constitution had
| carried. This constitution Is our present
organic law in this state. Isn't this propo-
sition similar to the one presented here?'
mo; 1t is not the same" said Mr.. Web
ster, because the legislature is a law
making body. and the power to reconvene
inhered in itself. whereas the city council
derives its power as a Board of Equallza-
tion from the legislature, and not from
ITSELF"
but the council makes rules for its own
guidance while sitting as a board" observed
Judge Ryan.
True, so long as those rules don't in
terfere with the general plan of assessing
and levying taxes
Mr.. Webster then argued that Mr.. Nc
Intosh had no right to the extreme measure
Of mandamus, since he had other remedies
at law. why didn't he sue out a writ
Of error?" he asked.
What good would that have lone me?"
asked Mr.. Mcintosh.
I'm not saying what good 1t would have
done you," retorted Mr.. Webster. but 1
do say It would have done you as much
what you might have done-not what the
consequences would be-"
Vision of Hot weather.
eff we would proceed along the lines Mr..
Mcintosh would have us we wouldn't be
through with this case before hot weather.
II the books and records CT the various
corporations are to be brought In here, II
they are to be examined infinitely, II there
is to be the great mass Of cross-examina-
tion that this would entail. and the interim
| fnabla anonaoagOn 80 Ian ouaoffOnu that
would come up, when is this matter to
be settled? What good would 1t do to bring
In the books7 Take the street railway
company. 1t has paid out 81, 500, 900 for its
cable plant, almost every vestige Of which
has now passed out OF existence. The cars,
the rails, the machinery and the fixtures
have been sold for scrap metal, yet their
original cost Is shown upon the books and
forms part Of the company's Indebtedness.
II would be impossible to get at the value
Of the company's property by any such
method"
rs that the reason the assessor didn't
get at it?" asked Mr.. Mcintosh.
THE law tells the assessor how he shall
proceed to ascertain the value of corpora
ton property rejoined Mr.. Webster. 1T
tells him to go into the powerhouses and
estimate the value Of what he sees there. to
| IAludl TIC nlu Va th0 ChIcf VI II ma
chinery, OF the lines of track. etc. etc., and
make up his report from such inventories.
That is what the law says. but Mr.. Nc
Intosh would have us bring in the books.
That is the difference"
1t was nearly 4 o'clock when Mr.. Web
ster 1ninshed his address. He was fol-
lowed by Attorney w. W. Morsman Of the
telephone company, who began by reading
one OF the hve complaints filed with the
Board Of Equalization.
Says It's an Amendment.
"This." said he, seems to be an amend
ment to a former complaint, and a motion
for a rehearing. Can 1t be that the coun-
sci thinks 1t incumbent upon the board OF
equalization to sustain a motion for a re-
hearing? Where does he get his authority
for that? He certainly knows that the dis
position OF such a motion is entirely optional
with the board, and that 1t can sustain 1t OF
override 1t as It sees At. Now, II the coun-
sci is going to rest Upon that contention, ]
can produce any amount OF authority ia
controvert it."
81 don't think there's any room for specu-
lation as to my position in this case. II
is that we didn't have a Nearing"
o an original complaint"
Certainly, not on an original COM
1 PAhluts nOI any III hAnQ ~ - SOLuplhluG
What you are trying to DO" continued
Mr.. Morsman, sis to have that board re-
convene and review and revise the product
OF its own solemn judgment. You might
just as we'll have said that you weren't
satisfied with the work Of the board, and
wanted II done over again. This, as hal
been proved here by ample authority. CAM
be done except as Is specially provided foI
by statute.
There was a hearing. as the records
show, on January II. These complainant
appeared on that day and presented theil
objections. The objections were adtudicated
the incident was closed; the board ad.
iourned sine die. and now there is no pro.
cess known to law by which It can be re.
convened. 1t may have been arbitrary; n
may have been erroneous. or even illegal
It was certainly not a refusal to act.
Report Cuts No Figure.
Their excuse is that the board makei
q false report. Here IN q part Of the appli.
cation they quote the portion OF the repor
which they contend Is false. II says, We
the city council. sitting as a board o
equalization, have carefully and fully heart
all complaints Of unequal taxation, ant
where the assessment has been found too
high we have lowered II, and where too Low
We have raised IT, etc. But this Is nothing