TAX ADMINISTRATION 167 
State Tax Commission to grant hearings and hear evidence 
with respect to the valuations complained of and that, if the 
alleged facts were found to be true, this body would have 
taken action to remove the discriminations that formed the 
basis for the suit. This decision was surprising, particularly 
in view of the fact that in a previous case! involving similar 
circumstances of alleged discrimination the Court had held 
that it was “preposterous” and “unthinkable” that the 
statutes conferred the power to decide such cases upon the 
State Tax Commission. The Brinkerhoff-Faris case was 
carried to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the 
decision, rendered June 2, 1930, it was held that, while the 
Supreme Court of Missouri “had the power to construe the 
statute dealing with the State Tax Commission, and to 
reexamine and overrule the Laclede case,” since the court 
had not overruled its decision in the Laclede case until June 
29, 1929, the time during which appeals could be made to 
the State Tax Commission on account of valuations for taxes 
of 1929 had expired. It was held further that at no time 
“did the State provide to the plaintiff an administrative 
remedy against the alleged illegal tax; and in invoking the 
appropriate judicial remedy, the plaintiff did not omit to 
comply with any existing condition precedent.” The judg- 
ment of the Supreme Court of Missouri in this particular case 
was therefore reversed on the ground that no redress had been 
possible. 
At the present time the procedure in cases of complaint 
concerning bank assessments is taken in accordance with the 
decision of the Missouri Supreme Court in the Brinkerhoff- 
Faris case. The banks first appear before the county boards 
of equalization and protest their assessments as discrimina- 
tory. Then, under the Brinkerhoff-Faris decision, an appeal 
has to be taken to the State Tax Commission, and finally, 
if the desired redress is not obtained through the Commis- 
sion, action must be taken through the regular court proceed- 
ings. Unfortunately, this method does not establish any 
principle that can be used in assessing banks generally 
‘hroughout the state. The continued protests by the bank- 
yf de Land and Improvement Company v. State Tax Commission, 295 
Mo. 298.