The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-01-10
To the Editor:


on request will not be published. Let
tiers not exceeding 200 words will receive
preference.
To the Editor:
Your editorial of Jan. 3, entitled
Freedom for Cities" contains state
ments that are not in harmony with
the facts. We concede your right
to criticise, but feel that criticism
ought to be based on facts, not
rumors.
This board has never tried to in
terfere with local self government
anywhere in the State Of Indiana. 1t
has no authority except on the APP
peal of ten or more taxpayers.
The Hon. Thomas R. Marshall,
after having been Governor CT the
State Of Indiana for four years, and
man whose democracy has never
been questioned. and whose faith in
local self government could not be
questioned, yet, after four years ex-
perience as the chief executive of the
State Of Indiana, in his last message
to the Legislature, recommended
that:
-. no bonds shall be issued to any
municipality unless. application made to
asking for leave to issue bonds and
showing the, purpose of the issue. is
leave until it has fixed the minimum
price at which the bonds may be sold
ana eXacted proper bond and guar
antee the use Of the proceeds for the
authorized.
This power is greater than that
exercised by this board. The State
Of Indiana does not have the recall.
Officers are generally elected on
promise of economy and pledging
the taxpayers that they will re-
duce the burden of government, ye.
no sooner are they selected than
they engage upon eXtravagant pro-
grams Of spending public money.
The only remedy the taxpayers
now have from the action of such
officials is by filing petition and
having the matter reviewed by the
tax board.
The Supreme Court of the State
of Indiana has upheld the constitu-
tionality of the law authorizing a
review on the question of issuing
bonds. This was upheld in the case
of Van Hess VS.. Board, 100 Ind. 347.
The Supreme Court in that case
held that as to the purposes for
which taxes are to be used, or
whether one improvement should
be made or another should be made.
must be decided by somebody. .
The experience of the tax board
during the 1919 and 1920, was such
that the board did not feel that it
ought to have anything to do in re-
viewing bond issues or tax levies
where the people were all agreed
among themselves. It is only where
a difference of opinion arose and
where there was doubt in the
minds of some taxpayers whether
certain things should be conferred
upon board, and then only to
either approve or reduce The
amount proposed to be spent.
The taxpayers in practically every
county in the State have availed
themselves of this right of appeal,
and we believe that the great ma
Jority of the taxpayers and voters
in the State of Indiana are in ia
vor of this right given them to ap-
peal from unwarranted and extrav-
agant action of their public officials.
Your reference to the action of
this board in the Huntington mat
ter Is unfortunate in this, that this
board never took action such as you
refer to. Taxpayers in that com
munity appealed that question to
our board and this board was
ready to approve a bond issue in
the sumo of $4,000. The attorney
beneral held, however, that this
was a matter for the public service
commission and not this boar!
People all over the State of In
diana are clamoring for relief from
the excessive burden of taxation.
Some think that this can be ac-
complished by reducing valuations.
If all property is properly assessed,
then the burden of taxation falls
equally on everybody, but to say
that officers shall be permitted to
seek the franchise of the voters on
pledges of economy, and after they
assume the duties of the Office, for
get all pledges made, and enter on
an era Of eXtravagances, and then
to say that the taxpayer who paws
the bill shall have no relief and
no remedy, and when a remedy is
given him, to say that it interferes
with the sacred right Of self gov
ernment is stretching this theory
entirely too far
Recently it was proposed in the
city of Terre Haute, in Fairfield
Township, to build forty-five roads,
which were practically streets, in
the city of Terre Haute, under the
three-mile road law, that would
have increased the burdens of the
taxpayers enormously. Many of the
taxpayers in that city had paid for
their streets under the Barrett law.
After a careful consideration, this
board approved five, because these
five were of such Importance that
after proper consideration we felt
the improvements ought to be made
by the township. If the taxpayers
had had no right of appeal all of
these streets would have been built
at the expense of all the taxpayers
in the township.
The National Municipal League
has shown an interest in this mat
ter and the officers of that league
feel that some means should be af-
forded the taxpayers to stop the
unnecessary expenditure of public
money. and Indiana's plan has
proven most practical, and is gain