Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-08-30
THE TAX LIST.

Argument Before the Three District
Judges Yesterday Upon Objections to the
Proceedings for Sale of Property Delin-
! quent or Forfeited for Taxes of 1879 and
Prior Years. Defects In the Published
List--The County Auditors Action With
out AuthOri v of Law, Etc.
In the district court yesterday, before the
full bench Judges Wilkin, Simons and Brill)
the contested tax cases, heretofore referred to,
came on for trial, and Lorenzo Allis, Esq, as
counsel for certain taxpayers, and claiming
the place OF friend OF the court, moved to dis
miss all the proceedings pending for judg
ments upon the taxes of 1879 and prior years,
for want of jurisdiction, in that the prior pro-
ceedings had not been such as 10 give the
court jurisdiction. He held that the original
list OF delinquent lands and taxes, being IN the
nature of complaint, must conform to the
law; that the court has no jurisdiction until
such list is published; and that in this suit
it had never been published. Something
else has been published, which is not the list
prescribed and required by law. 1t appears
upon the face of the record here that the pub
LEGATION is not copy of the list furnished by
the county auditor. Two of the columns of
figures, those stating the taxes and penalty,
are left out, and only the final total is given
Furthermore the notice as published does not
refer in ineligible terms to the terms to the
list for 1879 and prior years, but is the same
that is attached to the list for 1880. This is
not the notice required by statute and does
not give the court jurisdiction. Still further,
it appears ON the record as if the officers had
exercised their utmost ingenuity to make
their proceedings absolutely void-that this
list of Delinquent or forfeited lands contains in
addition to the delinquent taxes of 1879 and
prior years the taxes of 1880. This
is clearly violation of the
statute which in language states thar
the list shall be of taxes (which appear to have
become delinquent in 1879 or prior years.
This act of 1881 was special remedy, intend
ed to clear up the taxes of 1879 and prior
years. The officers had no right to combine
with these the taxes of 1880. If they had.
how could the court enter the separate judg.
ments revulred by the law upon taxes OF,
1869 and prior years and upon the taxes of
1880?
IL. j. Horn, Esq sustained the motion to
dismiss upon the ground that it does not ap-
ear from the accord that the procs eding Is
under the act of 1881 Under this new law
the sale of delinquent lands is absolute, while
under the general law of 1878 there is allowed
two years for redemption. Hence it is neces-
sary that there shall be two separate, distinct
judgments-one for the taxes of 1879 and prior
years, and one for the taxes of 1880. 1t appears
To be the theory of the new law
that the property heretofore sold to the
State for taxes is Its property, and therefore
1t Is no longer delinquent. This law of 1881
is, IN fact, applicable only to lands struck off
10 the State, already forfeited, and not to lands
which are simply delnqu- Mt and liable to for
fnsrv Dot har fl,r~n - -
that The proceeding is under the act of 1881,
relating to forfeited lands, or under the act of
1878, relating TO delinquent lands. In conclu
sion Mr.. Horn remarked that in view of the
severity and suddenness of this act, providing
for absolute sale of the taxable property Of
citizens, it was fortunate that radical defects
appear in these proceedings.
w. K. CASTOR, ESQ.,, in support of the mo-
ton to dismiss, argued that the time for max
ing this delinquent list, under the act of 1851,
has not arrived. The act reads, at the time of
| making the list of delinquent taxes for this
year, that Is of 1881. The auditor in his
notice to the publisher designates the
list as for 1879 and prior years, of delinquent,
not forfeited lauds, and the delinquent list a.
Of 1880, not of 1881. Furthermore, the list is
defective in not showing the taxes of each
year, as required by section ~ of the law oi
| 1878, as re-enacted by section | Of the law OF
1881. Que other objection, though technical,
may be urged, viii h is that when The count,
auditor made his order or notice designating
the paper which was to print the list, ne ha6
no authority 10 make it. The law Of 1874
was not repealed by the law of 1878, except
so far as it was inconsistent; hence the county
commissioners might designate the paper III
January, March or June, and until they had
| failed to act in either of these months, n au-
thorty was vested in him, and his action of
April v as premature.
A r. Capehart, Ed, of counsel for certain
d-iendants, also supported the motion to dis
miss, but reser ed his special objections for
The argument upon the merits of the case
Mr.. Allis called attention to the uncertainty
of the list, in its not showing whether the
years named are those for which they became
delinquent. If they refer to the years for
which the taxes were levied, then one year
| more must be added to his objection.
Mr.. CASTOR called the attention OF the court
to the fact that upon he face of the list there
is no designation Of the years-nothing more
than certain figures, which may or may not
stand for the years.
Here the court took recess until 2:15, after
which n County County. Attorney 5;3e Egan replied
particularly to details, leaving the
general view of the theory of the State for the
attorney general. Mr.. Egan commended that
| the directors were not in condition on the
record to claim a defect in the Jurisdiction of
he court-argulng that while many of the
answers were claimed to be limited to special
appearance, in effect and substance the an
swers were of such character as to amount to
a waiver of the special appearance and of tech
nical objections to the jurisdiction of the
court. He also claimed that it appeared suff1-
GENTLY on the record that the county auditor
had authority to designate the paper for pub
fishing the list and was not premature in do
ing so before the June meeting of the county
commissioners. Mr.. Egan also went
considerably into detail as to the char
acter and effect of some of the
objections, for the purpose of showing that
they were not entitled to be made as prelim-
mary objections before the court, on the
pending motion.
Attorney General Hahn claimed in constru-
ing the new law that more liberal rule
would be applied by the court in a tax case
between the State and citizen than in tax
case between two citizens, and argued that the
act of 1881 was based on the theory that the
State was the owner, absolute, of the lands
embraced in the forfeited list but that, owing
To defects in the tax law of 1878 and to other
causes, the state had been unable to dispose
of them. The act of 1881 was designed to
ifford a more effective means of dispOsing Of
hem, and the sale was made absolute because,
n theory at least, the delinquent taxpayers
had no title. 1t was not necessary il
making out the list to set fourth the special
years and taxes of each year. The act of 1881
~ ooro nliad with nv STATING tho aUyrau afa