Omaha daily bee., 1902-02-12
RESTRAINS TAX LEVY
tcontinued from FIRST Page,

(Continued from FIRST Page.)
sIderation in this matter all the argu-
ment OF plaintiff or defendant regarding
the .I PSSIitics sbs eG STapsndo used Sr ore ore e SSss;
porations, and also the political combine
t torn Si for Or'y the enr piaintif, and win dispose of
the case, upon the theory that the city
S Sei.h and IN not an in ,n response 10 any inauence
exercised on Il by the corporations; We
viii also eliminate from any, considera-
ton what the newspapers say In reference
to the matter, and win also eliminate from
any, consideration the citizens as a
Thn s case say mon nor the legal Questions that
have been raised. and the facts as they
ave been shown by the evidence;
plants were filed against the Corporations.
all Of them being individual complaints
on printed sfs,1 blanks sI6Ss prepeE 6Se p Sf t these o% eoma
plants, which / have in my hand, Is signed
by w. @. Shriver, complaining OF an as,
Sompisint, SIS or Ms per cent. OF the
Iliue Of said lot, which complainant states
tons assessments, and he asks that the
corporation assessments be raised.
The minutes of the meeting Of the Board
show that the city council heard the Real
Estate exchange protests on fle and from
1 the evt0enC6 Inat mas Oe61 hlTOuutcu. III
this case IL is shown hat the hearing
was a technical one based upon the obtec:
ton that no complaints had been hled and
Of Eauaiization could not raise the assess
--.fT Must Hear Evidence. y
| The supreme court OF THIS state has held
In several cases that a board of equaliza.
hearing 1n Evidence. and il they attempt to
Az a. xrnfAF rEfT
The action OF the city council as a board
| of equalization on January. IL at 2 p. m,
was not a the hsaTMlR 1T,o nhS and shiri Vepn co Sme
plants. Hasoall's motion disposing OF the
lightweight complaints states that tney
posed OF, but the record as made. by the
City clerk says that only the Omaha Real
Est n6ehs Sncnhnse The ear record e 11a itseif to show
that the Shriver and Morton complaints
Vas I read the statute, 1t is the duty Of
equalization, to hear ali complaints that
m tinE s es a aiG Board ana Of Is eaG TnHf for. The
isngth y time they VII IL 9 *! 4 board e e
srieved may file complaints and when so
not agree with Mr.. Morsman in his state
ment hat the council, while sitting as a
board of equalization has no power to raise
I'll d6bOoctAAChts - ~ NAAa -
corporations, metropolitan class, provides
for the assessment of property by the tax
commissioner and his deputies.
- Powers of Board Limited.
II also provides for a board OF review
review are limited. They simply review
the assessment as made and they may cor
rect errors OF u~nderw saIIuss siSn or 9bs ov wa2naaion
the owner notice that he MAY, show cause,
raised. but there Is no provision for a tax
payer Ming q complaint and having a
isw reauireS the city council to sit as a
board OF equalization and provides for the
adoption by the city council Of rules for
when these complaints are hled. they
should be heard and disposed OF on their
merits and not overruled or dismissed for
| things the city council did when II organ
lied as a board Of equalization was 70
In writing and filed with the city clerk;
Before the board of equalization overruled
Morton they had entertained the 1--WE COM
plants which we're filed by Shrtver and
Morton on January IL, snd which com
substance as the first complaint fled by
said parties. There was no mention made
capital stock OF the Nebraska. Telephone
company had not been returned for taxa
ton which. under the statutes OF this state state
in the first complaint that the franchises
Of these different corporations which are
complaint these matters are all set forth.
After the fling OF these last complaints,
1 nof,t S,'y ybe e9 eoTpor StGslsO Of the e time Of the
hearing which was, by motion, set for
MOn.dha s aS SssnSSTy 20; nat at 2 t 3 m mot Il rs w %fseS
was carried setting Monday, Jan1Sry 70
plants. was IN conflict with the. rules OF
the citV council. as a motion huQ been
previously made for the same purpose and
lost and no motion made to reconsider.
Records Investigated.
But we find from the records that after
the motion was made and carried setting
i HaHu said e. o;ompiaiRnts. there WSs a motion
made by Hascall striking from the records
the previous motion and also a motion BY
without a RECONSIDERATION OF the previous
motion, and II one motion was out OF order
then they were ali out OF order.
These proceedings were all before the
resolution No. 100 was proposed by the city
while resolution 1886 may have disposed o.
the previous complaints filed BY Shrivel
|, The last complaint. which was pending fol
hearing. After the passing OF the resolu'
ton i$ and before the time set for IN,
A.. hearing of the last complaints, we hnC
the records. or the minutes. made by the
city. clerk. show that there were then thir
/. not disposed OF, and the record further
shows that a modon was made that No
further complaints pc eonsidsred or hssrS
I a hearing, which motion was carried. Thil
1 was an arbitrary action on. the part o.
that the plaintiffs have not had a heerinl
! upon the last complaints hlsd by them
md until nth the ,S city s sSSDslI siy sssy hen 2S1u,''
injunction win, therefore. be continued q