The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-06-14
HENNEPIN MUST
PAY FULL TAX
Test Case Of Minneapolis Retail,
ers Is Lost in the District
Court.
STATE BOARD RECORDS
WILL NOT BE ADDUCED
Suit Was Based on Allegation
that Increase Ordered Was
Unjust.

Hennepin county taxpayers have
failed in their frs attempt to secure
relief from the increased personal prop
erty valuations foisted upon the COM
m!un.ity by the last state board of equal
The. judges Of the district court to-
day signed an order sustaining the de-
murref and granting motion to quash
the writ of certiorari secured by Ben
jamin r. Coppage, citing the state board
OF equalization to produce for review all
its records.
: The nominal relator in the case is
by lite Minneapolis Retailers as so
tion and many Of the most important
business concerns Of the city. These in
terests have not as yet decided upon
their next move, but Rober Kolliner of
Hall & Kolliner, attorneys for the re-
lator1, said today that conference
would be held at once to determine upon
from the district court order, BIT it is
more likely that legal relief will be
sought in some other way.
The writ of certiorari was issued last
March against the state board of
equalization. Attorney General Young,
appearing specially, demurred to the
writ upon several grounds. The de;
bench, with the exception Of Judge C.
B. Elliott, who was in California, and
was submitted the first of April.
Increase Was Unjust.
It was claimed by the relator that the
valuation Of his property had been I'M
justly raised by the state board. He
alleged that the board was not legally
not been according to law and that the
records of the board meetings were not
preserved in proper form. He also set
up that the board, in taking junket
to St. Louis, had lost its entity and
that when it returned, it had no au-
thority to raise the Hennepin county
| valuations as it had done. For these
reasons he claimed the right to have
the boards proceedings reviewed by
| the court.
In demurring to the writ, the attor-,
| ney general, contended that the dis
| trict court had no jurisdiction over the
| board of equalization asa body, that
| the relator was not materially affected
by the increased valuation and could
! payers, and that if the board was not
| legally constituted, as claimed by the
| relator, it did not exist in law and
could not be cited to produce its rec
ords.
How the Raise Was Made.
The action of the state board Of
equalization, which led to the institu-
tion of the Coppage suit, was taken
last October. The committee on goods
and merchandise presented report ON
| the whole state, which made small
net increase in assessments elsewhere,
but in Hennepin county increased the
| schedule 25 per cent. A vigorous pro-
test was made to the board by W. L.
Harris against any raise, as the mer-
chants had returned as much as the
previous year IS assessments, and no rea-
son existed why their stocks should
have a higher valuation. The only eff
feet this protest had was to cut down
the increase to Is per cent, which was
still claimed to be unjust and dis
elimination against this city.
| Heavy increases. were also made on
lumber and other classes of personal
property, and real estate was advanced
5 per cent in Minneapolis; but the
chief contention was over the assess
ment on goods and merchandise, which
was compared with st. Paul and with
other cities to show that Minneapolis
had been singled out for especially SO.
we're treatment