The Worthington advance., 1880-06-17
THE MILL TAX.
The Facts IN the Cause.-The Wrong done
to the IdG-P P0uers.

singular way of spelling Lies" and is
going a little too far in the way Of spell
ing reform.
Rohrer first says, in justification of
his betrayal of the interests of the corn-
/ ty:
The value of the mill is best shown
by the fact that it went begging among
the creditors at $4,000.
In reply to this, it is only necessary
to quote some of his own friends. Thus,
in Dec, 1874, in proceedings in the
Court of Common Pleas of Ramsey
county, Peter Thompson swore that the
mill property would sell on forced exc
cution sale for $4,000. c. z. Sutton
swore ut the same time that it was
worth not exceeding $4,000. J. G..
Goodnow swore at that time that it
could not be sold upon forced execu-
tion sale for more than $4,000. This
was the opinion of his friends. Prof.
Humiston swore, that in his judg-
ment, j, was worth 100000.
But this really has nothing to do with
the case. The fact that the mill was in
yolved and that there were leins and
mortgages against it could not relieve
it from its just proportion of tax. In
1874 and 1875 vacant lots III 11ersey and
Bigelow were assessed at $1CO each that
could not afterwards be sold for S25.
Yet they were sold for the taxes Of
those years and the taxes were paid by
E. f. Drake who now owns them AS he
does the mill property. If Mr.. Drake
paid the full taxes in one case why not
in the other? If the Commissioners q.
bated Oh compromised in the mill case
why not in the case Of the Hersey and
Bigelow lots? Moreover, if it was right
to abate or reduce the tax in the case of
the mill, Why not on other property in
the county, where there was propor-
tionate reduction in the valuation?
Property owners in Worthington and
throughout the county paid their taxes
in full at the assessed valuation from
year to year, and could not plead the de-
cline in valuation Of subsequent ye;,ls.
If the taxing officers blundered in as
sessiNg property too high in those Years,
why should not others also be relieved
from their taxes?
Then Rohrer furnishes the Journal q
string of Misrepresentation intended
to raise dust and blind tho people as
to the facts. lie says:
On Sept. II, 1877, judgment was en-
tered by order Of Judge Dickenscn va
eating the tax OF 1873 amounting to
SS07, and That the property be discharg-
ed from the all tax penalty on tile
ground that the description in the as
sessneNt was SO defective that the tax
was worthless. Besides. the notice for
each year WAS published in the AD-
VANCE without the authority of the
board. We learn that the Supreme
Court i'll Eastman VS.. Linn, . y. ".
Reporter COS, decided that such publ
cation rendered tho judgment invalid.
Nc attempt was made to re-assess the
property leG these last taxes; tie
time having expired in which it c0nl!
he 'N''". ti:''v lf'r2mc utterly lost. TAe
tA': js''i i-.'nr:'t for the next year was
Vu'!, On ;c 'oUi!t Of the hl;nslrr in Civ
I'M, }'ut i: days notice to answer.
Now, Tie facts, so I;:v rs The Nul,lica-
ton in Ike ADVANCE: IS concerned, are
that Judge Dickinson held that the pub
liootiol' Was v;,ldas the ADVANCE was
then the only paper published in the
county. The board had previously des-
lgnated the ADVANCE as the paper III
which to publish the delinquent tax list.
AS to the ten days notice, the error was
corrected, or cured as the lawyers say.
The list was published serc;e weeks il
1877. 1t WAS discovered after the first
publications. that ten days notice was
not sufficient and the list WAS ordered
repnb]isl!ed giving twenty days notice.
1t was then published four weeks the
first publication being July 19, 1877.
Twenty days alter tie last legal publ;.
cation were given and Judgment was
entered on the Goth Of August. There
fore, so far rs tie publication goes, it
WAS perfectly valid, as the courts held
All this, is Rohrer's usual quibbling
and raising nnimportant points to blind
the public. The only material question
is:
Had the mill tax passed into ju0g.
ment?
The answer is, it had, and the prop.
erty was sold and the time for rcdcm3
tion had expired. Judge Dickinson re-
fused to set aside the tax, holding that
the proceedings were regular for tin.
year 1871. An appeal was taken to the
Supreme Court and the appeal was dis
missed, and the title vested in the State.
Neither the county com nissioners
nor the State Auditor, nor b)tl, have
any power or authority to abate or re-
duce the real estate tax after Judgment
is entered in court. It is then wholly
beyond their control. AS to the village
board, they have 10 more to do with it
than the trustees of a church. So far
as amy legal power goes, the board
might as well attempt to set aside the
Judgment in The late contested election
cases.
OF course the case could be reached
by special act of the Legislature as was
done in another case. On Feb. 25. 1879.
the Legislature passed the following act
That the board of County CommiS-
sioncrs of tie County of Nol,les is here
by authorized to ahate orreniit so mucl,
OF the delinquent taxes remaining I'M
paid Oh lots eighteen and nineteen in
block eighteen. in the village of Worth
ington in said county us in their Jlscve-
ton shall seem proper.
This was the only proper way 10 reacl,
the case in abating the mill tax. But
Ro!rer is not a mere lawyer. lie IS {:
law-makcr. lie makes the law on the
spot as he needs it, and he has, in this
mill-tax case, us in many others misle,l
the commissioners to feather his own
Opct rIHhn full TO, ,1,.,