| Show ill = n 4 f I I 4 THE TAX QUESTION k Pcilllon for Writ of Certiorari irfntu I I i e Befora Supreme Court I I i 1 Horn SIMIHOP TUB AIMIUHEIT a I I I i 41 AlUrnrys ZII and I rl tlilon for IMI I llontrs undlUlorny JfOTil Illibop I and Arthur llrowo fir Male Hoard 1 i 1 The Supreme court met Ii I ipoclil 11 t 1 lotslou today anl heard arguments on I the petition 01 James A Cunningham I and Iiabella M little for a will of cerllorla to review and annul the action ef the State bard of equaling lion In respect lathe faoardJ action lo railing the Valuation of properly In 11 > I Sill Like county flvrpir cent AttorneyiJohnM Zeus and K U Crllchlow appeared In behalf poll tl iiin and Attorney Central U ihop and Arlbor brown for the boar Counsel for the plaintiff contended e 1 that the State board bid no rlgbl I to Increase the total amount ot Ibe I Liable prDp11 In the State as returned 111 re-turned by the county auction and county bonds which bad been done by raising Bill Ln countys allotment and not lowering I Iheatessmenl ol some other county I counties 2 That the order of the all board was Invalid because did nol make the rule to accordance with the statute by railing respectively the goal estate Impronmol on real III king personal property 8 Thai Ibo I o dtrW n Invtlld because It raised the value of the money aliened and o I also mcrtgigei which were aliened at 1 their lull lace value Uoa1 for defendants contended that the ooollllulion provides that all property shall be aliened at In value in money The equalization mull be 10Iblllodrd This authorized the legislature lo past subdivision 9 sio ton 82 of the act of 1696 Tbatieollon oUlbolz the Hills board 10 Increase I or lower levy allesomersta Its 01100 vn lIlolly within that authority Ibo only question beige the constitution alliy ut Ibe law There li no clause la the oollllutlon thai can be found 11 1 prollibitID ouch legislation I The court took the mailer under ad vlismsnl I |
