The log cabin Democrat., 1920-11-03
COURT TO DECIDE TAXES ON COTTON LOCAL MEN PLAINTIFFS Assessments Ordered and Suit Filed to Restrain Entry of Taxes
 and Collection.

Classification of cotton as assess able and taxable property, which has been subject of controversy between the state tax commissioner and As sessor Roy Rogers on the one hand and local dealers and merchants on the other, resulted in an action filed in chancery court to restrain County Clerk John Reeves from entering up the assessments on cotton fixed by the commissioner and to prevent Sheriff w. M. Brady from collecting on such assessments Plaintiffs in the suit are Frauenthal & Schwarz, w. M. Harrell & Company, J. E. Little, Newborn Bros. Cotton Company of Marianna and Newberger Cotton Company of Little Rock
 Assessments of cotton made at the direction of the state tax commls- sion total $104, 300, divided among the plaintiffs as follows: Frauenthal & I Schwarz, 750 bales at $50 per bale, $37, 800; w. NJ. Harrell & Company, 1 100 bales at $50, 5000; J. E. Little, l 240 bales at $50, $12,00O; Newborn Bros. Cotton Company, 250 bales at $50, SIP, 300, and Newberger Cotton Company, 750 bales at $50, $37 300.
 As alleged in thea complaint, assess ment of the cotton was made at the direction of the state tax commission in an order issued at Little Rock on ] October 9, listing the cotton held by the plaintiffs and stipulating the valu- ation which should be placed in mak- i ing the assessments. The order was transmitted to Mr. Reeves for his direction in making up the tax books l for delivery to Sheriff Brady on i January 1, when the collection of 1920 taxes will be commenced When the complaint was filed in chancery court, ] Mir. Reeves had already entered the l assessments on the tax books, but had not extended the taxes.
 ! Notice has been given the state tax commission of the action brought here 1 to restrain the county clerk and sheriff, and it is said the commission i has called Attorney General Arbuckle into consultation. R. w. Robins of the local bar and Frauenthal & John son of Little Rock represent the plain tiffs.
 Seven reasons are advanced by the plaintiffs as to why the property Tn question should not be assessed. It IS . first asserted that Act. No. 147 of the l 1919 general assembly, authorizing the assessment of omitted property, IS not constitutional for the reason 1t pro- vides no hearing on such assessments. i Second, 1t is contended that original assessments, except in the case of railroads and other public utilities, must have the participation of the county assessor Third, such assess ments were not made or filed with the county clerk before the expiration of the time allowed for appeal to the county court. Fourth, cotton is not omitted property, and fifth, the cot ton in question was being merely held for resale in interstate commerce and was really in transit. Finally, cot ton so held in other counties of the
 state IS not assessed and hence as sessment in the county would be dis criminatory, and the tax commission had no information as to the amounts
 held by the plaintiffs and it's proper valuation.
 Pending a final hearing of the cause the plaintiffs ask that MT. Reeves be
 restrained from entering up such as sessments and extending taxes there on, and Sheriff Brady be restrained
 from collecting taxes extended upon such assessments.