New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-29

new: and TO this time only accounted for by
him through the proceeds he has paid INTO
the treasury purporting to be OF the tax
bills of said wear, according to the celtifl-
cate of the Finance Department annexed
hereto.
The recapitulatiOn of these aggregates
from my compilations show:
Third District Court-Aggregatc
suits. ................. $3.50 81
Third District Court-Aggregate
amount from 2339 to 4245, and
from 4403 to 1924, 2l47 SHIFTS. 40, l9G 10
Third District Court-Aggregate
SIS suits. ..................... 1862 -
There having been, however, of
| these suits not reduced to
| judgments and collected by
Mr.. Michinard after deliv
cry of the tax bills to the
| clerk. (of the amounts OF
which there is no record evil
dence), 50 suits. the total
represents the whole number OF
suits which 1rerc reduced to
judgments. that is to say SECS, 9l,Sl3 20
| Fourth District Court-AGgre-
81 100 judgments. .......... eo,osa 10
| Fifth District Court-Aggregate
judgments. 1895 "a
| Sixth District Court-Aggregate
amount from 52l to 6lS, SO
judgments. 1850 10
| Seventh District Court-Aggre-
gate amount frCm 1865 to 1873,
lis Judgments ........ 3I,440 az
SAC? suits. sI92, 446 G.
Whole total amount of 1l17
tax bills in the hands of
Assistant City attorney. 11i,2So 81
Total tax bills 664i. and ag-
gre2ate amount. ,12I 80
e. RESULT:
Amount brought down charge
able IL Assistant City Attor-
ney, without deduction Of com
mission Of five per cent ......S sill ,3So 81
Add amount of two aggregates 81
sums collected by Sheriff under
f. .fas. and paid over to Mr..
Mlchlnard.. Observation-Disclosures o,o"p 70
Whole liabilities Of Assist
ant City Attorney. Sll9,3H so
Deduct total amount as per state
ment of Finance Department
annexed. paid by Nj. Michi-
nard into the Treasury ...... 15,2E -
Remaining liability .... Si401O IS
If the claim to commissions depends upon
complying with the duties prescribed by
the law which allows them as recompcnse,
and if moneys not paid over are subject to a
demand of interest. two questions pertain
to them which it is not my privilege to re-
port upon or discusS:l have hence beer com
PEELED to exclude them from my result sum
mary.
Respectfully submitted,
I. ii. HOWARD.
New Orleans, September 9, 1870.
DEPARTMENT FINANCE,
New Orleans, August 10 1879.
l do hereby certify that the amount of
taxes for the years of 1867 and 1863. paid
into the city TREASURY by +. Michinard, to
date, as shown by the cash-boOl Of the late
Treasurer is as follows, viz: FOR ,ear 1907,
$75,2lS -; for year 1868. SEQ 1884 80.
E. V. HITCH, BOok-keeper.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS,
New Orleans September 10, 1870. ) |
p Michinard. Esg.:
DEAR SIR respectfully call your at
tention to the within report of Thomas II.
Howard, Esq, which transmit to you be-
fore making any use Of it. and request that
you will make an immediate statement Of
the subject matter involved.
Should YOU find it incorrect in any of its |
results or particulars, you will please in
form me at once thereof.
ALFRED SHAW, Administrator.
New ORLEANS, September II, 1870.
Hon. A. Shaw, Administrator of Public Accounts:
DEAR SIR-After several attempts to
meet you, resulting in the keen disappoint-
ment of failure, for the purpose of submit
ting to you satisfactory explanations in
answer to your communication OF the tenth
instant, and being informed that my mes
sage, advising you of the action l have
taken in consequence of that communica-
ton, is deemed insufficient, l respectfully
beg leave to state, as succinctly as possible,
and following the order adopted in the re-
port you refer to me:
l. That the report imposes upon me the
necessity of an investigation equally "labo
rious and complicated with that to which
the gentleman who made it, was subjected,
and which has been begun in my behalf.
9. That if suits on the tax-bills delivered in
October, 1863, were brought only in March,
1869. the delay is attributable, not to some
inadvertance,' but to the fact that the cita-
ton prescribed by law was published in
July, 1868, in accordance with the laws then
in force, and that in the meantime the juris
dictiOn Of our courts having been changed
by the constitution of 1868, rdid
suit could not be brought on the tax
bills without an enabling act from
the Legislature; this act was, in due time,
passed (see acts Legislature 1868 first ses-
sion under new constitution, requiring q
second, but less expensive notice, which was
accordingly published, and the suits were
, brought hereunder as rapidly as the labor
| Of preparation allowed. And here, al
| though what precedes would be an ample
| justification Of 1.-THE inadyertence" com
planned Of; it is not improper TO add that
since the passage of the acts of 1858 and
1899, III relation to our municipal taxation,
the immediate" delivery of The tax bills
into court was not required, but, on the
contrary, the object of these acts was, in|
| part, to so modify our previous laws on the
SUBJECT, rs to leave the bringing of suit I'll
| C., delivery of bill into court to thd
discretion of the officer entrusted with tfad
duty; and, among Others for the foilowind
| reasons:
| The tax bills unsolicited after the publi
| cations and delays prescribed by law lnaJ
| be divided into two classes: l. Bills due hi
| those who are so unfortunate as to be mi
able to pay. g Bills due by those who, fol-
reasons more or less valid, have either I'd
| fused OF been unwilling to paw In, deal
| ing with bills of the first class, certain
| degree of fOrbearance, with a view to saJa
| costs to the distressed, may we'll be and haIs
been, since 1859, frequently exercised, but
| in dealing with the bills of the second clasI,,
| the claims for relief and the reasons On
which they are based are so various,
numerous and often ingenious and
perplexing, that nothing short of de-
| tuat experience can afford an IDA
of the difficulties which besct the c}l-
lecting officer, excessive or erroneous assefs-