Omaha daily bee., 1902-07-11

is no issue OF fraud mere AZ all IN this
case. II IL not a question to be consid-
cred in this case. I desire to say pro-
fessionally to the court, as lite friend, that
II will be some time taking the testimony
II this matter is gone into and fairly sub
mitted, and we know your honors will see
the matter fairly submitted IL It IL gone
into. So far as these records are con-
cerned. they will be offered In a very short
time. perhaps, and I assure the court that
as far as I am concerned there will be no
cautious objections, and 1t is not our pur-
nose to interfere with a fair submission
Of this case to the court.
Judge sullivan-You allege in your APP
nlieation that the roads have not been
assessed properly, and you add to II that
the board knew they had not been as
sessed.
Harrington-Yes, sir, grossly and know
ingly.
Howe-we say that they grossly and
knowingly omitted to assess property val
ued at $500, 900, 900, though required 30 TO
do by the constitution and laws. The
whole issue is fraud.
simeral-we think, as q matter Of law,
that they have neglected to ASSESS $780,
600. 900 Of property, and that this writ will
issue from that fact alone. Now. that
NAV be legal fraud. as stated by the su-
preme court Of Illinois in the Goggins
case.
Baldvin-Now, Is II your contention that
in order to make q case you have to estab-
lish bad faith on the part of the board, or
do YOU intend to make a case by the actual
value to assessf
simeral-Fhe actual value to assess. or
rather differentiation, so grossly unoer-
! valued that 1t amounts in law to fraud.
Judge sullivan-That is proceeding on
the assumption that they have assessed the
franchise, but underyalued itf
simeral-No, we do not proceed upon
hat assumption at all. Now, taking their
last answer, they say they assessed the
property as a unit and as a going con-
Germ. Now, IL that includes franchise II
is a question of law, OF course as wen as
~ fact. but we claim that, as a matter Of
fact thew did not have before them sum
cIent data by which they could assess the
franchise at all, or arrive at any value
NJ n. and therefore 1t was not assessed,
Now. that is a question, not OF fraud, but
Of fact.
Howe-we claim the right to show actual
fraud, also legal fraud.
White-As / understood and read the al
| Tentative writ, l supposed that at the IN
ception Of these proceedings IL was the
| contention OF these parties that the iran
chises of the railroad companies have not
been assessed separately and apart from
the tangible property, and that 1t was
their contention that as q matter OF law,
the board was required to consider ana
separately assess the value Of these fran
chises. Now, when VIC read the alterna-
tive writ through we nnd they have taken
another position, and that their position
Is that the railroad property In the aggre-
gate has not been assessed high enough
In other words, that there has DeeD an
error of Judgment on the respondents, NOT
that there has been any fraud upon their
mart. Now. what do we have to bear out
this proposition? Why. these gentlemen
come up here and say they propose to
nroye what the valuations Of these prop
critics are not with reference to the fran
chises. but the values of the aggregate
properties. or rather the aggregate values
| OF the properties, and they propose to snow
this from the newspapers. Now, tnen' We
ali know from the experience we have mac
in the past, and from the knowledge thai
we have Of these rate cases and these ta'
cases, that in proving the value OF ran
road properties you cannot resort TO on'
item of evidence alone. We know ther'
are many elements Of evidence that mus
be taken into consideration In order to as
certain the value Of railroad property
Now. they submit in these newspaper
lust one item Of evidence, the values o
the stocks and bonds. That may make
prima facie case upon their part Inei
what has the board got to dor AND VIVA
Is the duty of the respondents In oroer u
protect themselves in regard to maj val
uation7 They have got to go into the evil
-. kkA dlHnront AlamAnt
that entered into their consideration Il
axing the value Of this property. So you
honors can see II is not simply a question
of fraud here, but the real issues pre-
sented by these gentlemen Is not a ques
ton of fraud, but a question Of the valua
ton of this property. Now, II you ar
going into the valuation OF this property
the court can see plainly that the field
wide open for the purpose Of fixing thi
value. So we mention that when the
, make their prima facie case. or when the
attempt to make a prima faeie case, thi
board ought to be permitted, as the attor
ney general has said, to produce evidenc
from all sources and bring before the cour
, all the different elements that enter int
the valuation OF railroad property, and le
: this court say whether or not they per
formed their duty.
: Harrington am sure that this wri
here charges fraud, and charges II abun
! dainty, and these gentlemen have had no
I, tlce from the start that they were charge
, with fraud. Now, there Is no need c
: mincing words. We charge actual frau
] and expect to prove fraud. We expect I
! prove that they totally, disregarded the
: duties and exercised gross favoritism
: assessing the property Of these transpol
. tation companies. We have said we d
: not think It will take long, but this is ii
, most important case ever submitted