Omaha daily bee., 1902-09-22
POINTS IN The TAX CASE


stantially the same as nve or six years
ago. when many railroads were bankrupt
and I'm the hands of receivers. While con
ceding this, the respondents argue that the
same is true of other property, the values
of which for taxation purposes remain as
before. We can only inquire into the matter
for the purpose Of determining whether
respondents have expressed an honest judg-
ment or whether the method pursued was
In such wanton and reckless disregard Of
their duties as to warrant the conclusion
that they acted ~fraudulently.
II they have acted as IL was their duty
to do and In such a manner that II can
In that which they have done, the court
is powerless 70 correct the error, even
Though it Be CONCEDED that the assess,
state these respondents are constituted n a
assessing railroad and other corporate
properties over which they are given ex-
elusive jurisdiction. 1t has the right, as
expressing it's Judgment as to vaiIatIons
acting In a quasi-judicial capacity.
Record Does Not Establish Fraud.
1t cannot. we think, be said that the
record warrants us in drawing the infer
ence that the assessment made by the
state board may be successfully impeached
for fraud, declared equivalent to no as
Clearly low as to show that ID iS fra ~ so
lent and intended as a discrimination in
favor of the railroads. Were 1t possible
~ ANaoNt NhAo NhNh II dIlHAl
be doubted that an assessment so made
should be adjudged void and a writ OF
manner provided by law. We are not war
ranted In saying that the respondents, with
the intention Of perpetrating a fraud upon
the taxpayers generally, assessed the prop
critics at a grossly inadequate valuation or
that they wantonly or purposely disre-
garded all information from which a just
valuation could be determined. They may
have erred and the Judgment exercised in
placing a %vsluation on the prop,
which would meet the approval Of all dis
interested and unbiased parties competent
to judge of the valuation of such prop
erty. They adopted a method in vogue In
this state for many years, and II the judg-
ment thus exercised is not In fact the hes!
below that which it Justly should be, YET
II the board pursued methods reasonably
suit and exercised an honest Judgment in
valuing tho property, the assessment can,
not be overturned.
Doubt as 20 n Was Done.
The admission by the respondents II
sessed the franchises, with other state
ments In confederation thereof, introduced
in evidence. very naturally raises a doub
the case as TO what was actually dom
and the nature OF the action taken by IN,
Was the action actually taken and Wha
property was In fact valued and assessed
the statements and conduct OF the mem
AAA2 "a $50 49,
of them I'm the assessment of railroad prop
erty seems to show a somew nat cloude,
condition OF the mind and afforded just
hable grounds on the part of the relator
for the belief that the board had faile
and neglected TO consider and include In Il
assessment property which they were b
law required 10 value and assess with tn
other properties of such corporation. /
the face OF these declarations and admis
siOns IL Is not 10 be wondered at that re
lators felt aggrieved and regarded the az
I ton thus taken as evidencing somethin
less than a full performance OF official duty
TO correct which the writ of mandarin
ought to issue. Evidence of the characte
| alluded TO has not been lost sight OF in on
I consideration OF the question and yet fTOi
all the facts and the circumstances a
disclosed by the records bearing on tn
point. we cannot escape the conclusio
that both the tangible and the intangibI
property Of the railroad companies wei
In fact assessed as one property or as
unit. hi the property was assessed as
live. going concern, and a valuation place
thereon when considered In connection wit
its use and that those elements which rel
e der IL valuable as an entire property II
: GLIDING within its scope all the essenti
e qualities going 20 make up the whole pro
n erty as a unit was actually and, in fac
included In the assessment so made.
In conclusion the court said;
In the consideration VI this case We ha'