The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-04-04
TEST RIGHT OF
| TAX BOARD TO
| DICTATE LEvIES
Arguments in Home Rule
Case Are Heard by
Supreme Court.

y Indiana's outstanding home rule"
Ease awaits decision by the state
supreme court.
The point involved is the right
Of cities to make budget levies
without dictation by the state tax
board. The decision will determine
the right of appeal from local
levieS to the state board as pro-
vided in Section 200 Of the 1927 tax
amendment.
Arguments were heard before the
court Thursday afternoon. The case
is an appeal by the state tax board
against a declaratory judgment of
st. Joseph superior court. which
would take 1roi the board it's iuris-
diction in appeals.
Higher Rates Asked
Action was instituted by forty
South Bend taxpayers who demand
that the 73-cent levy set by the
city council in 1928 be retained,
rather than change made to 70
cent levy set by the state board. This
puts the taxpayers in the role of
Fighting to pay more taxes.
Walter Arnold, South Bend at
torney, presented their case before
the high court with great vigor. He
attacked the constitutionality of ap-
peals to the state board, contend
ing that the legislature had no right
70 delegate such arbitrary power
without definite restriction.
Under this appeal provision the
state tax board could reduce local
leyies to the point where city gov
ernments could not function" Ar
mold declared. There is no restric-
ton on their powers and no appeal
from their decisions provided by
this law.
Definition Sought
81 do not contend that the legiS-
iature could not create such board,
but that it's functions must be de-
fined and confined We are here
attacking only the small part Of the
section which provides for appeals
and not the budget law as such.
These tax board representatives
come to a community and decide in
a few minutes, after q short hearing,
what expenditures are or are not
necessary. These are matter which
the local governmental officials have
mulled over for months.
1.-THE Constitution provides that
officials of towns and cities must
live there. In their role of passing
on budgets the tax board members
act as local officials unconStitution-
ally.
Delegating Power
I'm permitting the board to pass
on levies and reduce them the legis-
lature in reality is delegating the
very power to raise taxes, a purely
legislative function, to an executive
board.
Not only is the state Constitu-
ton violated under this appeal pro-
vision, but the federal Constitution
also. Giving the board power to de
stroy cities and towns is a violation
of the amendment prohibiting con-
f1scation of property without due
process of law"
ConStitutionality of the law was
upheld by Joseph Hutchinson, dep
uty encouragement, and Louis B.
Ewbank, special counsel for the state
tax board.
Holds Levy Adequate
Hutchinson contended the legis-
1ature gave power to the cities and
could delegate it elsewhere. This
point was attacked by Chief Justice
Julius c. Travis.
Judge Clarence r. Martin took
the deputy encouragement to task
on the point of whether the citizens,
as taxpayers, had a right to insti-
tute the suit. Hutchinson con-
tended that only the city of South
Bend legally could have done so.
Ewbank based the tax board de-
tense largely on the grounds that
the 72-cent levy was adequate to
raise the budget because of an error
~ ~frrfr ,f,1