The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-08-13
Denies Clemency Was Ex- tended to Corporation
 Or Individual
ACTED SOLELY ON /
 ADVICE OF ATTORNEY
President of Board of Revenue Takes Issue With Member of State Tax mmission-Presents Opin-
 ion Rendered

Denying that either a corporation or an individual was extended clemency by the board of revenue in the matter of docket- ing cases against two corporations and reaffirming his former statement that the board acted on the legal aspect of the case on the opinion of their attorney, Dr. R. F. Loveady. president of the board of revenue. makes answer to the interview given by Henry P. White of the state tax commission, which appeared in Wednesdays issue of The Age Herald. The further statement Is made tliat the state commission can tal<esup these two cases at any time 1t sees fit and. pass on the question of tax raises as they did two years ago.
 Dr. Lovelady's Statement
 Dr. Lovelady said
 ''As president of the board of revenue, desire to correct an erroneous impress sion which may arise from the interview of MT. Henry F. White appearing in The Age Herald on Wednesday morning, August 12, 1914
 "1n the first place, Mir. White seems to be of the opinion that the action in
 refusing to docket cases in the July term.
 
 vidual act upon my part. and not the act of the whole board. The fact is that
 the resolution was offered by Major Cam eron and was unanimously adopted by
 the entire board. Another erroneous state ment is that the board selected a eorpor- aton to refuse to docket case against. "The fact is that the board did not
 consider specially any individual or cor
 porate case, but it's order was general applying to individuals and corporations alike
 'rhe order being that the board would not docket any cases in the July term returnable to the July term. His state- ment that Dr. Lovelady selected cor poraton for clemency is without founda- ton in fact. Neither pr. Lovelady nor
 the board selected any person or cor
 poration either for cemency or for pros ecution. The cases which the county
 tax commissioner desired docketed were
 selected by the county tax commissioner
 and not by the board or any member of the board. These cases would have also been docketed had they been presented | in the June term along with 32O0 others against corporations and individual cases which the board did docket for the county
 tax commissioner, and which they have
 been patiently trying all during the month I of July and up to the present time MT. White may have had corporations chiefly | in view in the natter but certainly the board had in view only the law. The
 board viewed it purely as matter of
 law, which they submitted to their at | torney. and acted upon his opinion, which I appears below.
 l The board of revenue was not attempt- | ing to follow the precedent set by any | other county. but was simply trying to | follow the law and do their duty. This board has never declined to docket a
 case when presented by MT. Allen the | county tax commissioner. when the same
 was presented to the board within the time prescribed by law. as the board
 through it's attorney construes the law. ''The board has docketod for Mir AL len for the July term s300 cases 1 sus- pect as many as all the rest of cases docketed in all the other counties com
 bined. and the largest number of cases that has ever been docketed for Mir. Allen.
 Opinion By Terry | "The opinion rendered by our attor-
 ney upon the matter is as follows: - ITO the Board of Revenue.
 | III tue mater or tne lauthority of the board to allow cases l of tax undervaluations to be placed upon the docket during the July term of the board. returnable to the July term, I have to say that under the coa-
 struction of the statutes, which it seems
 to me obtains. the board is without
 power to issue process bringing in de- I ifendents in such cases. until the next
 succeeding term of the court, as pro-
 vided by section 2250 of the code of 1907. The next succeeding term of the board of revenue of Jefferson county | is October 1. Section 214S of the code | of 1907 provides that after the July term. the board may correct errors or | omissions from which the implication
 arises that they cannot consider after the July term, undervaluations. An un-
 dervaluation does not. in my opinion.
 come within the meaning of "error or
 omission"
 l Consequently, I hold that during
 the July term cases of undervaluations cannot be made returnable to that l term. but would have to be made re- lturnable to the october term and that
 as the board cannot raise taxes in the October term, that 1t would be useless
 to set docket for that term. Tho (Contlnued on Lnnt PaRol