The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-05-10

not unworthy of comment.
If we were to furnish the figures that be-
long in these blanks, 1872 would foot up
s57 All 90 This filling in is susceptible Of
the following explanations
1t has been the custom from the time the
office of State Auditor was instituted up to
the time The present incumbent of that of
fee was indicted into it,
To Warrant ON the Treasury
in favor of the tax-collector for the amount
Of his commission, and for the amount of
the delinquent list returned by him.
This is not only the custom but the law
The law says that the assessment rolls shall
be charged against the tax collector, and
he shall be presumed to have collected the
same at the period when required by law to
max his final settlement with the Auditor
Of Public Accounts.
The tax rolls then, being charged to the
collector, he must account to the Auditor
| for the whole sum of those rolls in the final
settlement, which must be made in December
Of each year. This settlement is effected
thus: The collector is credited with the
money he has paid into the treasury, also,
with his commissions and with the "deduc-
tions to tax-collectors" or delinquent lists.
All these credits added together must
balance his account. Now the collector
Must Hold the Treasurer's
receipts for these credits. These receipts are
l., @l,o+ I, re-
with the State. The Auditor, therefore, is
required to give the collector an order to
pay the money he has collected into the
Treasury, and an order or warrant on the
Treasure for the amount Of his commissions
and also an order for the deductions al
lowed the collector. This the Auditor has
not done, as is indicated by the blanks in
the table. The Auditor is the bookkeeper-
he She uld audit the accounts and the Trea-
surer should settle them.
That tn. is the formula prescribed by
law is evident from the fact that the Gene
raj Assembly
Makes Appropriations
for commission to tax collectors and also for
deductions to tax collectors; and the Audi
tor is expected to warrant on the Treasurer
for these sums. The law reads, "The tax
collectors shall be paid by
the State Treasurer on the warrant of the
Auditor of Public Accounts out of any
moneys in the Treasury not otherwise APP
propriated."
Has the Auditor drawn his warrant on the
Treasurer in favor of the tax collector and
has the Treasurer paid it No! The collec-
tor is permitted to retain his commission,
and pay over to the Auditor or Treasurer
the net proceeds only.
Why, it may be asked, has not the Auditor
Compiled with the Provisions
of the law ard with uniform custom Why
has he not caused the accounts of the col
lector to be settled up and closed in De-
cember, as the law directs' And why, if
settled, did he not report such settlements
to the Legislature, as he is in duty bound
What motive could he have in suppressing
this information from the public The
public has right to know how much is
paid to tax-collectors by way Of commission
and how much of the assessment rolls re-
main uncollected. Why, then, are not these
facts reportedf This inquiry is pertinent
for public officers do not usually violate the
law and common usage without motive.
The fact is familiar to all our readers that
the present.
Auditor Is Someyvha Errattc
in the administration of the affairs OF his
Office. We will instance the course pursued
hy him in requiring the tax collector to pay
the money collected over to him, instead of
giving the collector an order to pay the
same into the treasury. The Auditors ex
cnse for these proceedings was that he might
use the funds to buy up State warrants,
that the State might be benefited by the
discount If such proceedings be laudable
in the abstract. they were certainly illegal
Here is an instance where a public officer
violates the law he had sworn to obey.
1t is true that these deductions to tax col
lectors form no part Of
The Lasitim tie Expenses
of the government; but in comparative
statement of annual expenditures they
should uniformly be put in or left ont. As
the matter stands the Auditor cannot boast
thaG he has been instrumental in materially
reducing the expenses of the government.
Before closing this article we will call at
tentio1 to the fact that the taxes for 1872
and 1873 We're seven mills on the dollar more
than they We're in 1871.
And The collections were az vigorously en-
f reed in these years as they were in 1871.
Yet the delinquent lists for 1871 and the
commission to collectors amounted, to-
gether, to the sum of $500 725 or, while, for
the year 1872. these items, if reported, would
amount 10 s., Isl, b3f - aud, for 1873 TO
S3,14501l 81. How is it that not one-falf
the sums on the tax-roll5 Were collected in
1872 and 1873
ID, tho people cheerfully acqniesce and