Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-03-21


AS the tax sale did not take place until Dec. 10,
1876 the time for payment without interest
was extended under the resolution of the board
of abatement until that date. In concluding
this branch of my reply desire to formally
admit the correctness of the charge that "a
broad and cheerful spirit of accommodation
has reigned'' in the administration
of my office. l recognize the fact that am
a sworn officer of the law, bound to protect
and care for the public interests. but l am
not thereby transformed into an official pirate,
to treat the community as though they were
fit subjects for prey, and worthy of no lenien-
cy in the construction of laws.
If | have erred in my application of the spirit
of the law it has been an error On the
side of humanity, and l have
neither regrets apology 70 offer.
would rather retire from pnblic life to-day
forever, with consciousness that l had hon
estly administered the duties of my office and
at the same time had not unnecessarily OPP
pressed people whose servant l am. than to
reign perpetually as despot ready to strangle
my fellow citizens on petty technlcalltIes.
can challenge any man TO show that l have
ever wrongfullv appropriated dollar Tor my
personal use, and prefer the CONSCIOUSNESS
of having been able without violation of law
to render my fellow men some assistance to
the enconiums of the public examiner or
those partisans who may agree with hin.
ABAiEhENI Of lAAES.
The examiner devotes considerable space in
his report to the proceedings of the board OF
abatement. As was a member of that body
at the time, those attachments referred to were
made, | will state that while the records show
that large sums have been abated, l know OF
no reduction or abatement of taxes or interest
or penalty that has been made on account of
any favoritism or upon any other than good
and sufficient grounds. This statement, l am
satisfied, will be approved by Mayor VIM. Daw-
son, w. P. Murray. G. A. Johnson,J. w. Fisher,
j. C. Quinby. Z. II. Wood, 81. NJ Smythe, D.
C. Shepard, Thomas Grace. G. W. Griggs, VIM.
Rhodes, and A. Allen. gentlemen who have
been associated with and acting with the au-
ditor as members of the board of abatement.
COPY TAX JUDGMENT BOOK.
The examiner says, San attempt was made TO
check up this duplicate of 1871 to ascertain if
the collections had been accounted for and
whether the unpaid descriptions had been prop
erly entered upon the tax judgment books
and that he found great difficulty in doing so,
on account of the duplication and reduplica-
ton of numbers, etc. In answer to this will
say that the auditor and his clerks rendered
him every assistance possible IA that part of his
work, and found the stub or duplicate Of every
receipt called for by the books. That the dupli-
cation OF nun bers arose from using five different
receipt books at the same time in making the
receipts for that year, which was necessary on
account of the great rush of business at that
time. He also says he found some unpaid de-
scriptions not advertised or entered upon the
tax Judgment book of 1874. That some of the
descriptions We're, however, carried upon the
docket for taxes of 1872 and prior years. All
of which is very true but, as [ construed the
law at that time, did not think it right
or proper to make two sales of the same prop
erty in one year, though for taxes of different
years. Consequently, the property that was
delinquent for 1872 and prior years, and also
for 1874, was not advertised for the tax of the
latter year, but was sold under different law
from that under which the 1874 taxes were
sold, the first sale occurring in May for the tax
of 1872 and prior years, and the other in Octo-
Der for the tax Of 1874, both in the year 1875.
In these matters l think the laws are more at
fault than the officers whose duty it was to en-
force them.
The public examiner further says that he
discovered few descriptions that were not ad-
vertised at all for the tax OF 1874, and that one
person 50 not advertised paid his tax At low
rate of interest. This may be true, but wnen
you take into consideration the immense
amount of labor connected with the proper
preparing of the delinquent tax list of a county
containing forty thousand descriptions of real
the auditor has in which to perform
that tedious piece of work, no one will be sur
prised if occasionally a few descriptions
omitted. The present auditor of Ramsey
county does not consider himself infalible,
neither does he claim for his assistants total
perfection, but be has the conscious feeling,
nevertheless, that the duties imposed upon him
and his office have been discharged in the inter-
set of what he conceived to be the public good,
faithfully and to the best of his ability. AS to
the low rate of interest charged in the case re-
ferred to, am under the impression that
reference to the records of the board of abate-
ment will show why the full interest was not
charged.
He also says that upon examination of my
judgment dockets of property sold for taxes
he found u few names entered in pencil in the
column marked ito whom assigned, etc."
Suppose he did. The mere fact of those pencil
entries signiied nothing. That such entries
were there was disadvantage to the county
or to any fund, neither was
1t any advantage to the property
owner who owed the taxes. That memoranda
did not prevent in any way, the property from
being sold for taxes TO any one who might APP
ply to purchase. When the owner paid he
would have the amount of the judgment. costs
and interest to pay. If the property was sold
the owner to redeem would have the same
amounts to pay, and in no instance to my per-
sonal knowledge, has any property been with
held from sale or assignment to parties desir-
randa appearing upon the records.
In this connection, pardon me for saying
that the complete. legal and perfect manner in
which my tax judgment dockets have been
prepared and kept up in my Office has been the
subject Of high compliment by numerous at
tOrneys of this city and OF Others who know
what an importent record of that character
should coltuip.
AUDITOR s FEES.
The report of the examiner shows that the
question of fees allowed by the county COM
missionersI,to me was submitted to the attor-
ney general of the State for his opinion as to
the legality of the claims, etc., allowed. Some
of the bills he has approved IS legal, while
others he has disallowed. Among the latter
are my claims for services purchasing agent
of the county and for making the county COM
missioners' financial statements. l will not
pretend to question the opinion thus given by
the attorney general, but desire to say that
right here comes in conflict in opinion be-
tween two legal advisers; the county attorney
and attorney general. Mr.. c. ID. O'B-ien,
county attorney at the time, to whom those
bills were referred by the county board, re-
ported upon the bill for making the financial
statements as follows
COUNTY ATTORNEY o BRIENs OPINION.
'The only question involed here is whether the
services claimed for are such within the du-
ties of the county auditor prescribed by law if
they then they covered by his salary if not
vail olaf, F,nax