Evening Republican, Volume 15, Number 151, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 June 1911 — PULASKI COUNTY JUDGE HELD ACCOUNTING LAW BAD. [ARTICLE]

PULASKI COUNTY JUDGE HELD ACCOUNTING LAW BAD.

Judge Yurpfllat Give* Opinion That Law Is la YlolaUea of State , Coastttaeloiu —— <t Pulaski County Democrat. Judge Yurpillat has this week held to be unconstitutional two important laws, ox rather, parts of two laws—counts law was brought in the dredge ditch cleaning law passed by the last legislature. The suit attacking the public accounting lyaw was brought in the Starke circuit court by Attorney H. R. Robbins, who, as a private citizen and taxpayer, sought to enjoin the county auditor from paying the field examiners the amounts demanded by them for going over the books of the county. Hfis contention was that the law is unconstitutional because it deprives the taxpayer».of his property without due process of Jaw. Judge Vurpillat gave the case careful consideration, and arguments were submitted by Mr. Robbins and by lawyers from the state attorney general’s office. After going over all of these the judge became firm in his opinion that that part of the accounting law which provides the manner of payment to the examiners is wrong and against the constitution, and so states in his findings given out at Knox I Tuesday. The accounting law provides that the expense of examination of public accounts shall be paid by each municipality for the examination of its accounts, and when any field examiner shall file with the state examiner his voucher, the state examiner, if he approves the same, is authorized to certify the expense to the auditor of the county, who shall forthwith, and without any appropriation being made therefor, issue his warrant for the amount on the county treasurer to be paid out of the general fund of the county. Absolutely no provision is made in the law whereby any objection to the claim can be made by any one, not even a taxpayer whose money is being used in paying for these unsolicited examinations. There is no way in which a taxpayer can be heard in the matter, and for this reason Judge Vurpillat holds the law to be in conflict with the section of the constitution which provides that no law shall deprive any person of property without due process of law. He holds that the people’s money cannot be arbitrarily taken without the people's consent, and he roundly scores this law which permits the field examiners and state afficials to reach down into the treasury without first securing the consent of the taxpayers or their chosen officials.

Without doubt will be carried to the supreme court by the attorney general, and efforts will perhaps be made to have the case advanced on the docket in order that an early decision may be obtained. This is the first ruling on the law that has been made by a circuit judge since it was passed, and Judge Vurpillat’s decision is therefore of state-wide interest. The new ditch cleaning law is given a legal black eye for the similar reason that it gives the landowner no “day in court” It provides that the clean-out assessments shall be in exact proportion to the original assessments on the ditch, and against the owners named in the original assessment. Judge Vurpillat holds this to be bad because subsequent ditch work may have changed the benefits to be derived; because the original owners may not be the present owners, and because the law makes no provision for the landowner to come into court and remonstrate against his assessment, or to appeal. It is stated that this-«ase will probably not be appealed.