Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-03-17

As the special law provided tor chairman and
clerk, it wonld seem that all proceed
ana that all refunding orders should
as provided for by chapter 10, q. L. 1879. in
case of all claims ''the precise amount of
which" is not fixed by law.
1t is necessary to say for a full understand
ing OF this matter that the assessments for the
year were enormously cut down by the board
OF equalization before being placed on the du-
plicate for collection, and especially in regard
to personal property; after which the large
amount of attachments named above under this
head were made. Ten, twenty -fve and even
fifty per cent. of the valuation was abated from
many descriptions in the townships. On a
ship over 5000, 600 of it was abated. and count
ing the mortgages more than one eighth of the
whole valuation Of the county for the year, as
it appears upon the duplicate, was abated.
COPY TAX JUDGMENT BOOK.
An attempt was made to check up this dupli-
cate of 1874 to ascertain if the collections had
been accounted for, and whether the unpaid
descriptions had been properly entered upon
the tax Judgment book. Every step of this
procedure was attended with difficulties on &C
count of the duplication and reduplication of
the same numbers of auditors statements and
the fact that many stubs of these contained
neither date or name of tax payer. As great
length of time was required for this, the inves-
tigation was pursued only through the first ward
of the city, and the result is given as possible
sample of the whole. In this one
ward only, it was found that fifteen unpaid de-
scriptions were not advertised or entered upon
the copy tax judgment book of 1874. Ten of
these were in judgment on account of delin-
quencies of 1872 and prior years, and although
the amount of tax for 1874 was added to that
nd mt hook fhSa did NJ
sity of advertising for the 1874 delinquency.
Five other descriptions we're not entered upon
the copy tax Judgment book of 1874 or of pre-
viOus years, and were not paid until 1876 and
1871 Of these the tax upon the descriptions
belonging to one person amounted to 1872. 81.
This amount was paid April 30. 1876, with in
terest amounting to $5S. 10, the interest at the
legal rate from delinquency to date of pay
ment correctly computed being $l7S56. in
another case where the amount of delinquent
tax for 1874 was carried upon the Judgment
book for 1872, the intermediate taxes being
meanwhile paid, the former tax amounting to
S300.94 was paid On December l, 1877, with
$4,000 as interest. The amount of interest is
correct, but the point here made is that the tax
of 1874 being added to the judgment for 1872
and not advertised, it might remain there at
the tax payer option, and did 80 remain for
the exact period of two and one-half years
from delinquency.
RECEIPTS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR.
1t appears that there was no proper check
in the auditors Office upon the correctness
of the large amount of taxes of the cur
rent duplicate collected without interest
and accounted for by the treasurer
in the October Q870 settlement. Although
paid upon the auditors statements, the auditor
made no entry of the duplicate receipts return
ed to him by the (then) treasurer, but at the
Octohor ant al kbo
footings and distribution as correct. On check
ing up this First ward. however, it is found
that the entry of the receipt for the tax paid
on auditors statement No. 2, 1853, which is with
out name or date, is not to be found among the
receipts charged to the treasurer by himself,
and of course was not charged To him by the
auditor as he accepted the treasurer's figures.
The duplicate receipts belonging to this state
ment was made and receipted by G. 8. Uline,
county treasurer, per az" deputy, and was for
the sum of $735.50. As to whether similar er-
rors were made in other wards and the county
at large upon this list, is yet unknown.
In regard to the tax of 1876 (paid as the9l874
tax, without interest and accounted for by the
treasurer at the October, 1876 eettlement). on
page Is of the treasurer's collection register,
and a summing up of the total "city collec-
tions," there is the following entry, viz. 'To-
tai valuation, $6,052, 677. 90. Tax collected,
$133, 1926" and under this there is distribut-
ed to the credit of the different funds the sum
of $133, 1889, the precise amount which would
result from a twenty-five mill tax (the rate for
the Year, on the valuation named above. But
it is found that when the footings of the col
umus of valuations and collections upon the
different pages are brought together Gas the
treasurer has failed to do) the total valuation
should be $6, 061 .686, instead of S. 052, GIT as
above, and the tax collected, $133, 58.27. or
exactly 5000 more than was reported by the
treasurer as 'tax collected"
Similarly under new territory" collections
(page l57 of the same register), the entry at
the eend is: "Total valuation, 1872, S2I. Tax
collected, $15, 063.59." while correct footing
of valuations and collections by pages, gives a
valuation of $S03, 1884, and collections of $15,-
e64, or $2O0.47 more than was reported by the
treasurer as "tax collected
There seems to be no doubt that the footings
of valuation in both these cases were falsiied
40 as to produce less amount of taxes than
was actually collected and IN the same even
amount of dollars. The entries of both these
settlements are said to be in the writing of Al
bert B. Item, an employee in the treasurer's of
flee at that time. Each page of the collections
has been refoOted and found correct. 1t is
only the totals that are found to be falsifei.
1t was the duty of the auditor to have kept an
independent record of these collections from
the duplicate receipts retnrned to him by the
treasurer, and had he done so and made his
own fOOtings of the same, the diferepces
would have been at once detected on making
the settlements. These discrepancies have not
been brought to the notice of h1r. Uline (the
treasurer at the time), ON account of his alb
sence, and he is of cuurse entitled to his expla-
nation Of them. 1t is a matter of regret that
this could not be had before this report was
rendered.
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.
The grievances in regard to these taxes have
been brought to the notice of the board of
commissioners. and, as in my letter to that
body have stated the case quite fully, I quote
from it here and make the quotation part of
my report: "a very large amount of personal
taxes remains upon the duplicates of former
years against which judgment has not been en-
tered, and which do not seem to have been
abated or purged from the rolls by any authori-
tative action. By general law the power re-
mains with your board to revise the lists of
personal taxes returned as unbelievable by the
county treasurer, and to erase and cancel from
the lists such as cannot be collected, but /
would respectfully commend to your judgment
the question whether pencil memoranda OPP
posite the names (which pencilings can at any
time be erased or changed by anyone having &C
cess to the books) bear any evidence of careful
supervision, cancellation by competent au-
thority. Such marks found upon the lists are,
for example, as follows: Dead n. f. w.
left sold ont mo prop.,' busted left
city, left State etc., etc. But leaving as