Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1862-03-05


Treasure neglect 10 comply with the law
in making cut his sale certificates, then
would his papers be voided and non-resi-
dent delinquents win their property from
taxation.
"cotton u king has its counterpart in
more ways than one. With the land spec
ulator land is king, aud to any extent his
authority Is used He has hundreds Of
sympathizers who do bis bidding willingly,
and We viii say conscientiously, for some
men are 50 blinded by their iagorite mon
arch as to be honest idolators. The land
agents are his saIaried officers and work
just in proportion to pay. Grant County
pays the Board but small salary, not
hall what the spectators pay lots Of agents
in the county. No man can serve two
| masters; rather, he will be devoted to
whichever pays the best, and the other
viii be farthest from bis heart. Hereon
we hang an argument that nonresident
hand wars, their agents AMI idolators are
host to manage, inasmuch as the saxes
are about to be dearly augmented, and
when, by following the legal, statute track,
such spectators will be compelled to for
felt their property to the county. Where
as, BY yoiding the tax claims they may be
able to hold on to their lands another half
generation Of time. We want to see the
penalties heaped up 50 as to force sulsen-
der 1T once Of such property, rather than
leave the entire burthcns OF taxation
upon resident taxpayers. Il would be a
better stroke Of policy to double the legal
penalties, rather than lower them to seven
per cent, as ne Board has done, provided
double rate could be legalised.
Since The appearance Of our articles Of
last week on this subject, we have heard
by letter from a gentleman who was a
member Of tie County Board last fall
The letter may appear at length at some
future time, provided we can get bis con-
sent to use the names referred to. 1t
seems it was suggested in his hearing that
several hundred dollars, perhaps half the
amount pad for printing the tax lists,
could be saved to the county by letting
the work TO the lowest bidder Writer
supposing that the county was the loser Of
the entire amount paid for printing such
lists. consented that such would be well
enough; but after reading our explanation
showing the utter falsity Of the statement
that the county is loser Of what IS paid
for the printing, but on the contrary IS a
gamer, he asserts as his belief that the
mover Of the whole measure designed 20
deceive the Board, for the reason that he
must have known better, and 50 known
that he was misleading members who were
taking for granted Is true the falsehoods
he was dealing out. Considering also that
the same faithless member was also party
to the scheme for ordering the Register OF
OF Deeds to open his Office to the specula-
tors for making an abstract of titles, work
which has been 50 bitterly denounced in
tie Herald, the writer thinks the matter Of
letting the printing was Q spiteful deal to
offset what we haze said against the ab-
stract Of title operators. This explanation
may be earnest, though We rather adhere
to what we have sad, that the great de-
sign has been to reduce the penalties for
non-tax paying as a benefit to spectators
and also to lay foundation for the ulti-
mate cancellation Of all tax Claims against
non.residents.