Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-10-26

stated that "if this act validated the
assessment there was no need of the
county board of review or the State TaA
Board to act at ALL"
Judge Hay held that the Tuthin-
kiper act does not legalize the action
held invalid but provided a way to
have 1t done in a valid manner"
THE Tuthill- Kiper act is not curative
in the ordinary sense of the word"
Judge Hay held.
The court held that the taxing officials
were free under the Tuthill- Kiper act
to fix assessment valuation at any sum
which, in their judgment, the exigencies
/ Of the public needs required.
1T might have been less, 1t might
have been more, and If the board had
authority to fix the assessed valuation
below the old assessment, they had the
right to fix it at the same valuation as
far this act is concerned. with posi-
bly, one exception" Judge Hay stated.
Understand, that ( am trying now to
show that the act itself Is not respon-
sible for the fact that the two assess
ments are identical in amount. and,
therefore, is not yiolative of the rule
contended for by the plaintiffs
DISCUSSED VARIOUS
POINTS IN DETAIL.
More than fourteen pages of Judge
Hays decision was devoted to the con-
| tention Of the plaintiffs that the board
gave no notice of the contemplated action
which entered the horizontal increase or
der of the board unconstitutional. be.
cause the plaintiffs claimed It took away
property without due process of law
RI hof h. rxrT,f ,R
certain action was to be taken would
be ascertained upon inquiry as easily as
1t would where the board may continue
in session and adjourn sessions from
time to time for Thirty days or more"
said Judge Hay in showing that the
Tuthill- Kiper act requires the State tax
commissioners to meet within ten days
from july 81 of this year
Judge Hay discussed in detail the
various points raised by the petitioners
for taxpayers IN supporting their petl-
ton asking that ar induction be granted
QUESTIONS RAISED
IN COURT ACTION
The plaintiff taxpayers in the various
suits attacking the Tuthill- Kiper act
which was rushed through at q special
session Of the State Legislature in an
effort to sugar coat" the unpopular and
illegal horizontal increases. base their
action asking for relief upon several i'm
portant points.
Some OF the various questions raised
during the argument by counsel for the
taxpayers. are as follows:
That the action of the Legislature In
passing the Tuthill Kiper act virtually
sets aside final decision by the Indiana
State Supreme Court and also decision
by judge Linn Hay who held that the
State tax board exceeded it's authority
under the first tax act IN attempting TO
equalize the assessments as between
townships.
That the action OF the State tax board
in purporting to review, re-assess and re-
equalize the assessments under the Tut
hill -kiper act, was not In accordance
with the. act as passed at the special
session OF the Legislature.
That the horizontal increases deprive
taxpayers Of their property without due
process OF law.
That the horizontal increases are con-
fiscatory In spirit and are unfair.
That the State tax board gave no no
tees as required under the Tuthill Kiper
act that they were going to re-assess and
That the Tuthill Kiper act is unconsu'
tutionai as being IN violation OF both the
State and Federal constitutions.
CASE BINDING
IN ALL TOWNSHIPS.
The taxpayers asked in their original
petition that County Treasurer Ralph
Lemcke be restrained from collecting the
horizontal increases as based upon the
alleged provisions OF the Tuthill Kiper
act and that the Indiana State Tax
Board Be enjoined from enforcing any
orders relative to the enforcement Of the
provisions Of the Tuthlll- Kiper act rela-
tive TO horizontal increases.
The decision OF Judge Hay Ia based
upon the petition OF the farmers OF
Washington township. but the decision
Is binding In the suits OF all townships
in the county with the exception OF Cen.
ter township.
The taxpayers Of Center township did
not fle petition asking for an injunc-
ton.
Counsel for the plaintiffs took an ex-
ception to the courts ruling and this
! indicates that an appeal to the State
Supreme Court is contemplated.
The records of the court show that
the plaintiff excerpts TO the decision OF
the court in refusing to grant an In
junction.