Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-02-06
BUT ONE ISSUE INVOLVED IN
MUNICIPAL LEAGUE TAX SUIT
IN SUPREME COURT.
NO DISAGREEMENT OVER
CONTENTION 40 TO TAXES
Only Point Left in Controversy Is
Question Of Right Of Courts 70 Issue
Order Of Mandamus Against Exsou-
tive Department - Reply Filed by
Pisres's Attorney to stats's Demurrer

for and on behalf Of Frank G. Pierce.
Of Marshalltown, and the Iowa League
of Municipalities. has just filed in SUI
preme court the reply argument in the
case in supreme o involving the
mandamus orders from court which
taxation purposes Of all property in
Iowa last yea That phase Of the case
which comes to the supreme court re-
lates chiefly to the right of the courts
interfere with the executive depart
ment Of the state or to issue a writ of
mandamus where an officer arbitrarily
abuses the discretion he has. But Incl
dentally it involves the whole question
of permitting acknowledged illegal as
sessments in prior years.
state Admitted Contention.
The state demurred to the petition in
lower court and standing on the de-
murrer appealed to the supreme court.
claiming that the action was not one
which could be sustained. The suit
was brought against Governor Car
sSAA oAAu SAAS SOu1lCAA VI
he was a member. The statement Of
facts bearing on the essentials of the
case is enlightening. After .reciting how
the plaintiff. Pierce. appeared before
the council in 1911 and 1912 and showed
how imperfectly the assessments and
adjustments had been made, the recital
continues:
AT these annual meetings plaintiff
appeared before the defendant and
called defendants attention to these
facts, the defendant admitted thestruth
OF plaintiffs facts and figures and adj
mitted that farm lands in the state
were being assessed at valuations
which varied between 40 and so per
cent Of the actual market value Of said
land. in. the ordinary course of trade;
that railroad, express, telephone and
telegraph properties in the state were
being assessed by defendant on q val
uation which was only from so to so
per cent of the actual market value Of
said properties in the ordinary course
OF trade. whereas real and personal
property situated in cities and towns
within the state was being assessed on
a valuation which varied between Is
and IS per cent of the actual market
value Of said properties in the ordinary
course Of trade.
Defendant admitted the truth of
said facts, admitted Its duty but simply
took the position that 1t would not do
what h law plainly required it to do.
and defendant admitted that at their
annual meeting In 1918 they would pro-
coed in the same way and do the same
things as they did at the other annual
meetings In 1911 and 1912, and as II
is admitted had been done over a long
period of years prior thereto.
Assessors Ignored Laws.
The record shows that for a long
period Of years the assessors in all the
counties Of the state of Iowa have in
t~entionally and habitually assessed ag-
ricultural lands and personal property
taxed in agricultural districts Of the
state at only from 40 to so per cent of
the actual market value OF the prop
'erty in the ordinary course Of trade. |
and that that fact was well known. to
the executive council.
The record shows that the exec
utive council of the safe OF
Iowa over a long period Of years has
Intentionally, systematically and habit
ually assessed the properties Of which
1t is the original assessor at only from
so to 60 per cent of the actual market
soioC u Sd1u properties III the ordinary |
course of trade.
"The record shows that all those
facts were known to the defendants,
the executive council. Everybody !
knows those facts to be true. Every
justice on the supreme bench Of this
state knows that it is true that this gen. |
eral situation exists in taxation matters
In his state and has SO existed for many |
years; If plaintiff ever gets to trial on
the merits of his case he will prove his |
case by the testimony of members Of
the executive council. Whenever stu |
dents Of taxation in this state have met
it has been agreed by all that what
plaintiff has asked in this case should
be done. Members of the executive
council for years ave admitted it.
Did the Easy Thing.
1T is simply a case where everybody
knew and admitted the facts to be as
the plaintiff alleges, everybody has
agreed that what the plaintiff asks
should be done; but our executive
council, knowing that the valuation Of