The Plymouth Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1878-1901, 1879-04-10
A LegaliZed Robbery.

"A LegaIiZeu RODDerys
With our hasty undigested system
of legislation, whereby members are
compelled to gulp down or spit out
whatever is presented on short notice,
very ridiculous provisions find their
way INFO our statute-i ooks. One of
the most ridiculous CT these speci
mems is found in section 256, Dayis's
statutes, volume l. passed in 1872, on
the subject OF sales of real estate for
delinquent taxes. Itrrovides that in
any conveyance made by a county
auditor on sale OF lands for non. pay
ment of taxes, il the sale for any
reason is invalid tho purchaser shall
be entitled to recover from the owner
OF the property the amount OF tuxes
and charges paid on the sale, with
interest at the rate OF twenty Ave per
cent. per annum from the date OF sale.
and shall have twenty-five per cent
per annum interest on all subsequent
taxes paid. II the sale is just and
valid he is not entitled to half this
sum. This statue is simply legaliz
ed robbery. There can be no better
definition given to the act. The Su
preme Court, on q case made before
it, sustained the law, and held that IL
nigh be enf,rced. This was q sur
prise TO lawyers, but was grand
thing for combination which had
been formed in an adjoining State to
speculate in tax titles. III The sale is
valid they do well. but il the sale is
invalid they do better. There is no
law on the statute book which is so
uniformly condemned, and none so
oppressive. There is not n man In
the State who does not condemn the
law, unless it be the men who draw
under it twenty five per cent. inter
est per annum on their investment.
There is no apology for such robbery,
none in the world. A bill, No. AGO,
was introduced In the Senate, Friday,
by Senator Garrigus. amending the
law so as to require the coInty on
void sales TO refund the purchase
money and lawful intere-t to the pur-
chaser, and was defeated on its final
passage by the following vote: Yeas
Benz, Dice. Garrigus, Grubbs,
Kahlo, Mercer, Moore, Olds, Poindex-
ter, Ragan. Reeve. Shirk, Smith, Tay-
lor, Trusler. Urmston, Wilson and
Winterbotham-in all Is votes. Those
who voted against it were-Briscoe,
Burrell. Cadwallader, Coffey. Daven-
port, Davis. Donham, Foster, Hart.
Hprfron, Kramer, Majors, Menzies,
Riley, SarninGhausep, Shaffer, Tail
ton. Traylor, Viehe, Wood and Wool
len. making in all 81. Why these
honorable gentlemen should draw
substantially a party line on this
legalizirg OF piracy is more than We
can see. Why should property
owner who is not at faalt for the sale
OF his property be compelled to pay
interest at the rate OF twenty five per
cent to the disreputable brood OF tax
title venders? Why should he pay
anything except his taxes and the
penalty to the county for the delay !?
Why should the Democrats In the
Senate want 10 perpetuate this rob-
berry? Where the property owner is
not at fanlt. IL any penalty is paid, it
should be paid by the officer who
commits the blunder. There Is Moth
like this, We presume. in force as a
law any where outside OF Indiana. II
there were imperfeciions in the Gar
rigus bill. why was it not perfected?
The majority OF the Legislature have
made great many blunders during
the session, but none worse than this
that we have seen.-Indiandpotis
I Journal.
|