, 1921-12-14
ARGUMENTS IN
PLATTE COUNTY
TAX CASE END
Valuation Controversy to Be
Settled With Decision of
Court Following Hear
ing This Week.

WHBATLAND. Wye, Dec. IA
Arguments and testimony in the
Platte county tax cases were con.
ciuded at $3.50 last evening and the
case was placed in the hands of the
court for decision.
Judge Mentzer adjourned the cour,
with h statement that he would rem.
der his decision at Z o'clock. when
our reconvened for an evening SEES
sion. At that hour. however, he
stated that 10 desired q study care
fully the authorities and precedents
cited by each side. and would accord
fngly require moro time In which TO
form his opinion. He requested the
attorneys for each side TO mako ab-
stracts of the cases TO which they
had referred and place these abstracts
in their hands as soon as possible.
Monday was given over to exam
tnation of witnesses. including Coun-
ty Assessor Paxton. County Commits.
sion Wayne Cave. County Clerk
DUNN and Chairman of the State
Board of Equalization Draper. The
entire sessions of the court today
were given over to the arguments of
the counsels. Attorney Cortherl speak.
ing for about five hours, and Attor-
neys Mullen Ind Walls for the de-
fensc speaking about an hour and a
half.
Attorney Cortherl for the plaintiffs.
laid stress on the plea that the state
board could equalize taxation between
counties only by reising the aggre-
gate assessments on all property or
on all classes of lands. The action
OF the state board in raising the vnlu.
atoms OF special classes OF lands he
stated to be. in effect an equalization
between individual property owners
within the county, for county as well
as for state purposes.
Attorney Cortheil also made a
scathing arraignment of the state
board OF equalization. introducing tes-
timony and argument to substantiate
4 plea hat tho board had arrived al
no orderly method of functioning Ina
would assure uniformity of practice.
and hat the board did not make the
careful examinations necessary to
qualify It to interfere with assess
ments made by the local officers at
nrst hand for county purposes.
The specific action of the state
board in question. in ordering tho
blanket raise on Glass 1. 3 md 5 lands
WAS attacked on the grounds that the
order was issued after the first Mon
day in September. at which time the
law requires h assessments 10 be
completed and the leyies made by
the board-of county commissioners. 1t
was charged that the state board had
no right to equalize after the date on
which the law stipulated hat the as.
sessments should be complete. 1t vas
further advanced that the action OF
the state board was taken at a date
SO late that there was no possibility
of the hearings and opportunities for
protests always required in such
cases.
Attorneys Mullen and Walls for the
defense based their case mainly on
The equity of the action of the state
board and the alleged immaterial ma
ture OF the legal objection raised by
the plaintiffs. Their argument was
intended TO ~exonerate the state board
and to saddle the responsibility for
the MISUNDERSTANDING on the board
of county commissioners and the
county assessor. Attorney General
Walls stated that a main reason for
the creation of the state board was
the inability Of previous tax officers
to e~quitably equalize the assessments
of individuals owning large tracts of