The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1871-06-27

pense, to resort u: courts fort tho III,
dication OF his righta;. The only dis.
Esfhoson swhtc1r I can: disco1sr ,in the
matter ot delinquent salss between pro:
perty in n'inoQ}porat6d cities and. villages
4nd Property,in the county is thlS, that
If al, the sale. the land adYeffissdl except
In Incorporated cities and yillegss, can.
not be sold for ohe-fourth Of les assessed
value, the Auditotie ie required, on behalf
OF the State, to purchase o !; eu6l 6loienf
quantity thereof to satisfy the taxes and
penalties; whereas, in che case of oity or
villagei property the Auditor Is not re-!
Qoired TO bid. az ell-upon the property,
but in the absence Of other bidders, the
land becomes immediately forfeited to
the State. In the former case. (the case
Of country property the property bid
in by the Coanty Auditor for tho State
wonld become chargeable simply with
the taxes and penalties, the same as if
purchased by private individual In
the latter case, he case OF city or viii
!age property the whole property Of
bidders has become forfeited to the
State, is charged simply with the taxes
and penalties, the same as if the whole
had been purchased by private indi-
vidual, and in either case the redemp-
ton is to be made upon the same terms
and conditions. The only difference in
the two cases appears to be that in the
one case the State has seen ft to guard
against the sacriace Of country property,
while i'll the case OF city or village pro-
perty, it was not thought probable, as
sumo. that there would be sufficient dan
ger OF sacrifice to make it necessary
for the State to observe the same pre-.
caution in this respect.
thus indicate to you my views upon
the points presented, after n pretty full
consideration. I agree with you that
the law is perplexing and obscure, and
it may we'll be that have erred in my
constructions, but in any nctual case it
will not be difficult for parties to bring
their actions for the redress of their
wrongs, and thus any errors of mine will
Ebe corrected. ~
/ II my reply Is not entirely clear to
you, as it may not be, I shall be happy to
give any further explanation of my
views which you may desire. Very re-
specially, yours,
D. H. CHAMBERLAIN,
Attorney-General.
. COLUMBIA, June %, 1871. H
D. Fl. Chamberlain, Esq, Attorney. Gene.
| raj.
DEAR SIR: We arc Obliged to You TO,
your answer of yesterday.
We Pat the questions to yon in our
irsstt letter e the same terms that they
were put to rs; and your answer to our
first inquiry agrees fully with our ex.
pressed opinion. AS to tho other mat
ters submitted, your views seem to be
reasonable, and, perhaps, correct; but,
as you say, the law is perplexing and
obscure at least, your views will, we
suppose, govern the officers in admins
tering the tax Act, and to that extent
they are very important. The recent
ruling OF the Supreme Court on the
question of-the granting of the writ OF
prohibition. has relieved much OF the
anxiety we felt at the time our letter wa:
addressed to you: for by that writ the
legal right can now be tested before the
citizen is harassad. The obligation to
pay, under what, perchance. may be m
arbitrary construction of the law, with
the privilege OF recovering back by suit
the wrongful execution, was hazardous,
and, to say the least of it, extremely
embarrassing. It is matter of regret
that the tax law is so complicated in its
details. The chief merit OF n tax Law
should be clearness and perspicuity, aud
III this respect, at least, the present law
can be greatly improved. Very respect
fully, your obedient servants,
POPE & HASKELL.