, 1842-12-03

llUN
4 If the collection of the revenue in any
Of the counties renders the office of sher-
if too onerous, the county courts of all
such counties could be required 10 ap-
point a collector.
The law regulating the duties of as
SCISSORS is defective, and requires amend
ment. The penalty of the bond, which
they are required TO give, has proved
wholly Inadequate, in many instances, TO
enforce the proper performance Of their
duties.
From the influence ofinterested coun-
sells, or a mistaken sense o duty, the as
SCISSORS of 43 counties failed to execute
the act imposing a tax upon money loan
ed at interest, and money invested in the
purchase of bonds and notes, for the year
l84l. This failure was the less eXcuS-
able, as the Auditor Of Public Accounts
furnished the Assessors, in due time,
with the proper construction Of the act,
and informed each that it was 10 be exc
cutcd for that year. In some OF the
counties there has been Il failure 10 exc
cute the act for the present year.
If it is desirable TO derive revcnuc
from the objects mentioned in the act
and it is presumed that non will insist
that the money lender should be exempt
from a tax upon his capital, while pro-
perity less productive is taxed in the
hands of the poorest citiZen-justicc re-
quires That those counties which were
not assessed in 1871 and 1912, should
be assessed for those years. Ii this is
not done, the counties which have been
assessed for those years would seem TO
have q Just claim TO be reimbursed the
amount they have paid into the Treasury;
and skis cannot be done = i;houi a breach
of the public fifth, those funds having
been set apart and pledged for the pay
ment of the interest upon the bonds au-
thorizcd TO be issued at the la.t session
ofthe Legislature.
The act, it is believed, will not be pro-
perry executed, unless the persons as
sessedarc required TO disclose, upon oath,
the amount loaned al interest and invest
ed in the purchase of notes, o will
there be an uniformity OF assessment, I'M
less it is made the duly Of Tie assessors
20 conform 10 the instructions OF the Au-
ditor, at the peril Of removal from Office.
The Auditor will, in due time, furnish
YOU with a list of the counties in which
there has been a failure 10 execute the
act.
1.-THE preeent revenue laws are not re-
viScd and corrected, tEe financial affairs
ofthc State will be subjected to great
embarrassment.
BY the fifth section of the "act sup
Elementary to the several acts, providing
for the levying, assessing and collecting
the revenue" approved February Is,
l84l, it was made the duty Of the Exc
cutive 10 employ counsel 10 institute suit,
in behalf Of Uriah 5. Gregory, late col
lector of Clark county, against those
persons by whom he was arrested and
imprisoned, while in the discharge Of
the duties Of his office. | did not doubt,
from the several provisions Of Inc act,
that :he object Of the Legislature was to
obtainthe decision of the Supreme Court
Of the l. Stascs, upon the question Of
boundary between this State and the
Territory of Iowa. With this view of
the subject OF the law, | employed the
Hon. Luke T.. Lawlcss toinsliiute the
roper suites, in the event there was a
certainly of obtaining such decision.-
Judge Lawless, after an interview with
Mr.. Gregory, and a full investigation o.
the whole question, gave it as his opin-
ion that there was no certainty of OBJ
tanning a decision by the Supreme Court.
upon the question of boundary, and in
this opinion fully concurrcd.
Tho opinion Of Judge Lawless was
Predicated upon the facts, first, that as
the sheriff who arrested Mr.. Gregory
resided in Iowa, the suit against him
would have to be Instituted in the courts
of thai Territory, and there was no Ger
tainty that his plea would be so shaped
as TO present or admit of being present.
ed, the question Of boundary, the Gov
ernor of that Territory having declined
any aid in producing that result. Sec
ond; 1t was extremely doubtful whether,
if the suit was determined againt Mr..
Gregory in the Court below, he could
make the affidavit necessary TO its re-
moval into the Supreme Court. Indeed,
it was believed that he could not.
In addition 10 these facts, l believed ii
highly probable, the trial necessarily oo-
curing before an Iowa jury, that the de-
PENDANT would rest his Difference upon
the plea of not guilty, and rely upon a
verdict for nominal damages. But con-
ccding that he would so shape his pleas
as 10 admit of the question of boundary
being replied by the plaintiff, yet that
being in part a question of fact, it was
TO be presumed m Iowa jury would de-
eide it against us, and the refusal to grant
a new trial not being considered by the