The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1879-03-06
Extracts Grof

Extracts FRO
Mr.. Flewelle
mittee on Chin
mitted the follo'
Hon. ]. II. CoehTap
RcprcsentatiS
Your Committee
whom was referred
"An act for the relic
l.. Tarlton and to az
certain moneys TO
by the State" havinc
bill, together with the eeidcnc,
port thereof. beg leave 10 ros
the following report;
We ind that In 1870 the eaigl
johnson. the husband Of Mr.
surcties on the Official bond
ris as collector OF State tax
county and that in is72 II W
said Morris was = defaultc
him and his sureties in IN,
Travis county was institute
was shown in evidence ~
Owens and johnson. upon helm
suit, came TO the capll Al and m
OF said Morris's deficit with "a,
Ter OF Public Accounts and pal
ury in cash, the amour. claimd
troller as due from Morris,
$iS2i i6, which the Comptt
frontier fund tax due from
which he should have collect
1870, but which the said Owet
fueed 10 pay on tWo grounds: -
sum had never been collcctCds Al
Cause sai6 tax haduexer been as
ON the rolls, and was not a iega =.
Morris.
Ii was further In evidence before US IN
the refusal afores aid the Comptroller d
70 relinQnish his demand, and the suit
Morris and his snreties proceeded In tn.
trict court OF Travis county, and that on
e,l. Na. far hsk
nlcd an amended petition. claiming ams
other things Ss0S7.16 as due from NJ
us on account OF taxes for 1872, =
which W as not claimed in the original petiti'
IL was further shewn that on the SANG =
october %, 1873, q trial OF said cause
against the wishes OF defendants counsc
that on said trial an amended statement
ris's account with the State, prepared
and constituted the sc'e cvi
upon which the state -
Judgment against the deGld
for the sum OF $3.50 81. On appeal this /
Court on May /, 1877 (See Morris v. STATE
Texas Repo1ts), aud has since been paid In
by the said Owens and Tarlton, the primo
and interest at the time OF payment amoan
TO the sum OF S756s.s5.
The claim OF the said Owens and TarlionN
relief at the hands OF the state, Is based
the following grounds.
l. They claim that four items Of chsrg
against said Morris on sand accom-
nd all of which they proved
and helped make up said Judgment q -.
illegal, incorrect aud unauthorized char
the sums of money represented thereb
not have been txaeted OF them by
These items are;
Justices fees and commissions. 80.
Frontier tax collectable on rolls, 1870 .e.-
Frontier occupation tax, 1871. .....s.....
Occupation tax, second quarter, lsfa..
With reference TO the fret OF 81
was shown to your committee
act OF April -, 1871, commsasiq
and collecting were required
placed on the rolls, which was
was further shown that the r
county were not returned by th
Comptroller's otiice until some
1871, and that on November 90
April -, 1871, in this respect,
Apart from the brief space OF tim
Morris could have collected such
commissions legally, IL was In proof hCfOf'I
that ha did not collect said sum OF sidos.5I,
was not required by the Comptroller 70 do
but that the fees OF the assessors OF McLcnl!
county were paid that year cut OF "genel
revenue" upon the order of the Comptroller.
With reference TO the second item. 'front.'
tax collectable on the rolls Of 1870, S1s2i .SG :"
appeared that on December ~. 1910, the Con
troller directed all collectors, by ercular, TO g
lect an additional sum OF i've cents on the 81
on the assessments for 1870 for the purpose
paying the interest on frontier protection bon
authorized by the act Of August 3, 1870, /
most OF which bonds hsd not then been sol
IL was in proof that this circular did not q
Morris until about the frst ofJannary, IS
after he had collected in full the taxes
save insolvents, and that II was impoes
him TO comply with the order. IL was
shown that he had como to the capital on
afy 3, 1871, and A.seftled his accounts
the Comptroller for 1870. four days only
the receipt OF said circular. From the opi
OF ths court In g Texas II carly app
that this so-called tax was uncone
tional and Illegal, and the testimony -
your COMMITTEES ferther showed thaA -
was collected, nor Was siiy attonsi
collect It.
wi h reference to the third item aboyc
meTated, "Frontier occupation tax
$946. 49," the committee examined tho O
quarterly reports OF occupation tax cole
made by said Morris IN 1871. in flle
Comptroller's office, and found that no
collections had been reported. A large nui
of occupation tax receipts issued by raid
ris In 1871, running through different quariy
were submitted II evidence 10 the commi
and showed that no euoh tax had been coll
The tax deputy Of said Morris testife
us that said Morris. having taken legal a
fused 20 make this collection on the gro
the law failed TO fix the amount OF this
IL was beyond the power OF the Compt
do so, In which the majority OF your col
are OF opinion he was right.
Complaint Was made OF the fourth item ID
acd Occupation tax, second quarter y
s953.iSS,n - on the ground that said amount
not collected ~ Morris but by his success
office. by whom Il was paid over into the
ury, and the proof showed this 10 be FAC
that the State had twice collected this am
oacc from the taxpayers and tgain fron
sure.ies OF Morris.
In the Investigation OF thia
mlttee endeavored 10 explore eVefy
information. and examined the tax r -
the Comptroller's Office as well ns the 30.
and records Of that Office. and the counsel
the State and defendants IN said eagl
Upon an inspection Of the ledger for u
period, belonging to the Compiroi qr's ON
we were somewhat astonishcd 10 hnd no char
whatever against Morris in said book, bn
large amount OF credits in his favor, aud n
the testimony before ue, We are al lose 70
deretald from what source some OF the tic
hereinbeforee epeciiedfas charged Hgsinst Nor
have arisen, especially the last three, -
Upon ! careful e Il; ;eSei1Iiiderptpa on Of &c inel
and justice OF the bin. your committee feel
hesitaucy IN recommending Il 70 the fny0fA
consideration Of the House. Il 4 true there
been an adjudication Of the case In The coui
but the record OF the cause discioscs that
merits Of the claim now before as were
passed upen by the courts nor considered
them. The opinion OF the Supreme Co
clearly intimates that had the case, ~ now .
sented, been shown on the trial, thc a
would have been altogether different. Pei
under the technicalitics Of the law the
ment might be held conclusive. But vi
reflect that the parties were s1ed aWai
their domicilee, that no notice was give
OF new and additional charges againal. theI
cipal, that the trial was Hncxpcctf
their counsel snd took place ID thl
and without notice to them. and tina
trial the State recovered a judgmeo
these suretiea for 5000. which their
never collected and conld not collec
which the State could not be enfitioa
law or morals, your committee is not
to Fe-t upon such teEhnicAlities, but 70
TO do justice between the State and heI
witho0t regard 10 forms or teehnlcalit
We therefore recommend the paesa
biil. FLEwELLEN. cA