Daily Republican., 1879-02-12

spoken, bat as we predicted not to con-
denim the defalcations of the officials in
Kent and Sussex counties, but to con.
denim the REPUBLICAN for forcing it to
speak, and as il calls it, libelling the
State. The astute editer, while raying
at us and calling us all kinds of hard
names, does not say that Kent and Sus-
sex are not default-rs, but that they
are not defaulters in the ordinary sense
of that We do not know what
70 MAKE of such distinction, unless in
the shape Of an apology for the failure
of the two counties referred to, to pay
the State tax which has been due since
1876. What the editor Of the Z" Il. f."
means by an ordinary defalcaton he
does not STATE. Perhaps he means that
the default in the payment Of $50, 900
il an extraordinary d-falcation, and if
this i, what he means there can be no
doubt that the community at large will
agree with him. Without being thought
critic Of the smart editor and his model
pap.r, We would like to ask HIM what
he calls a defalcation in the ordinary
sense of the term We have always
thought failure to pay over that
which was due at an appointed time
va. a defalcatiOn, especially if that
amount reaches up to $500 as it
does in the case of Kent and Sussex
The money has been due since 1876,
and should have been paid in 1877, but
it was not, and the report of the State
Auditor to the Legislature shows that
it is not paid yet. this is not de-
fault in payment We would like to
know what is. But as by way of farther
apology, the "E. E." states that New
Castle only through the -xertions OF
her County Treasurer, William Her
bert, narrowly escaped Icing default
er in the same sense. This apology
only makes worse show for the coun-
ties that the editor tries to defend,
for it shows that New Castle, with an
honest, energetic Treasurer, has
paid her State taxes, and withou,
rejecting upon the honesty and integIl.
ty Of the Treasurers Of tho two lower
counties the Auditor report shows that
their taxes are yet unpaid and likely t.
remain so for some time in the indeti
mite future.
But the Dover correspondent of the
e. t." like his master, after indulg
ing in few filings at the ignorance o
the REPUBLICAN comes to the rescue O
the lower counties. and by his attempted
explanations has succeeded in making
things about as clear as mud, and in
order to give sample of explanation:
We clip from his letter the following;
There is no default, and the only
fraud" consists in the ignorance dis,
PLAYED at that Office, which, however,
is SO well advertised that there is not
any great danger that credulrnce will
be given its rxtravagant language. The
facts are simple and comprehensible.
OF the l0p-r cent. real estate tax levied
for Stat. revenue in le76-the last
wear Of the levy-there was in 1877 un.
collected and due the State from the
counties the following amounts: New
Castle, SO, 900; Kent, S27, sl9; Sussex,
$l3,ss7. That is to say the collectors
in the different hundreds were behind
in collecting those amounts thing
which is not only usual but obviously
cannot be avoided until we get more
stringent laws for the collection of tax.
w. During lS77-s the money was col
lected and paid into the county treas
nries. and Mr.. Herbert, the New Castle
county treasurer paid over the $4,000
TO State Treasurer Giles. The treasurer
of Kent has repeatedly rendered the
amount due--less a few hundred dol
lars-but the tender has been refused
and for this reason. According to the
provision of the law the State made nc
allowance-seemingly-for errors and
costs Of collection, and the question be
tween the county treasurer and the
State officer as to the right of the coun
ty to deduct the cost from the gross re
c.ipts and demand a settlement in full
has delayed an adj ustment of the tax
Since last February the county hal
paid on account of this tax to the Stat'
over $l4 900, leaving balance due al
is shown by the auditors report, 0
$4,000. The money has been fol
some time at the command OF the STAT
Treasurer. but there is this difficulty
the county contends that the State i
only entitled to 81 800 in round mum
hers. while the State demands the full
face of the tax $4,000. without 60
ing any further into particulars it ma
be said that somewhat the same state {
affairs exists in Sussex. Mr.. Dea
conld a. easily nave discovered the rea
state of the case by few simple in
uuiries as by resolution of inqulr.
before the Legislature.
This wise CORES pendent starts on
with the assertion that there is no de
fault, and yet it shows very conclu
sivelv that Kent and Sussex do Ow,
S26. 600. He shows that New sCastl
owed $4,000, Kent, S27 SO, and Sus
sex, $l3, SS7 of the State taxes of ls7
which was not collected in that year
but which we're collected in 1877 an
1878 and paid into the respective coun