The daily gazette., 1882-10-17
A BATCH OF BLUNDERS
IGNORANT REPUBLICAN CAM
PAIGN WORK.
CHARGE OF MALADMINIsTRATIoN
A Mares Nest In which Collectors Kyne
and Bedford Figure-The Different
Phases Put Upon Il by True Statements.

attack on county TAX collectors Bedford and
Kyne, citing two cases of "maladministra-
tion." The first instance 1t gives as follows
"a few days ago the Rev. Adam Stengle,
pastor of the Union NJ. e. Church and a
resident of the Third ward, called upon
Collector Bedford to pay his taxes. Mr..
Bedford ran his eye over the list and directly
informed Mr.. Stengle that he was "delin
quent." The latter surprised at the state
ment replied that he had paid his taxes for
1881; the ecollector asked the preacher to show
his receipt, but finally offered to place his
name on the lists. To this Mr.. .Stengle objected
because he doubted the collectors right to
replace his name. His receipt for 1881 is
dated October 3, 1881, signed by Bedford
himself and is for $1.s0. Mr. Stengle
assured a reporter of the Morning. Ne,cs that
he got the receipt In the office of the collec-
tors at 602K Market street. There lis no
doubt, however, that he was returned as a
delinquent. His name, "Rev. A. Stengle," !"
is the last in the column of the letter s for
the Third ward, and has 81 put down in the
tax column. That is, Mr.. Stengle paid
Charles Fl. D. Bedford S1.80 for taxes, and
by order Of the Levy Court Mr.. Bedford is
allowed "a more, making in all $3.50 to his
credit"
To GAZETTE reporter today Mr.. Bed
ford said that it was not unlikely that he
had received Mr.. Stengle's taxes and yet
marked him off as a delinquent. If so it
was a mere clerical error, which he had
right to correct on being informed of 1t.
Mr.. Stengle, however, had refused to allow
him to look at the receipt as well as de-
clined to allow his name to be placed upon
the lists, when he had freely offered to do
it. Mr.. Stengle states that his name has to
be attached to it In the tax column.
This is incorrect. The assessment
marked opposite his name, which is not at
the bottom of the s column, is S400, and
the tax is just $1.80 for which he processes
to have a receipt. The statement in the
morning organ tends to indicate that Mr..
Bedford on Mr. r.Stengle's tax has S. 80 to his
credit, that is the 81 80 and the alleged g.
and that he is benefited by getting COM
mission upon this sum, just as If he had
collected it. This is not the case. Tax col
lectors are "allowed" for delinquents in
other words, relieved from further trouble in
in collecting, but they get no commission on
what they do not collect.
Mr.. Bedford says 'I do not deny that
tax collectors make some mistakes. They
are not infallible. People come up here and
hurry us, and get mad If we don't do things
in less than no time, so that it must neces-
sarily happen occasionally that wrong names
are marked off as paid, by mistake, When.
ever we notice these errors we correct them,
There is not business in which bills which
have been paid are sent out again by mis-
take. The city tax collectors do it time and
time again. know instances where we have
marked off property tax as paid by mistake,
and have had to pay it to the Levy Court"
MIR. KYNE's STATEMENT.
The other case to which the morning organ
alludes, is that of Charles H. Reed, heater,
employed by the Mccullough Iron Com
pany. Reed says that he called ON Collector
Kyne for the purpose of paying his 1882 tax;
that he was told that he was delinquent for
1881; that he showed receipt for 1881, and
Mr. Kyne offered to give him receipt for
1889 on the strength of this one, and that
he (Reed) concluded to do without it.''
The statement concludes "Mr. Reeds
name is among the delinquents for 1881 to
the amount of 50. His tax was 80 cents
Thus Collector Kyne not only got the 80
cents of actual cash but also credit for 81
more from the county"
Mr.. Kyne's statement shows how partizan
and unfair the morning organ is, and it puts
a construction on it that the ignorant writer
of the article will not like to see. The col
lector says "Mr. Reed came here and
wanted to pay his tax. By reference to my
books found that he has been returned as
a delinquent. Explanation showed that
mistake had been made. His son George
M. Reed had not paid his tax and the sons
name appearing directly uDder Charles
H. Reeds name, l had inadvertently and in
haste, marked the tax for 1881 which he
had a receipt for, to bis son The law al
lows us to correct such errors and l told
him would go to the Clerk of the Peace
and have the return as a delinquent cor
reeted and then take his tax. He was per-
fectly satisfied, and said he was not busy
and would call again and pay the tax. He
also apologized for hot language he had
used before the matter was explained. Now
as to the statement that was credited by the
Levy Court with 80 cents and a tax of 80 in
addition, for which Charles II. Reed is de-
linquent This statement is false. was
credited with 80 cents, which had collected
from him but by mistake had given it to his
son. There was no tax of 80. There was an
assessment of 5000 opposite his name, which
he took for the amount of tax and the
amount of tax on this is 80 cents, which /
had really collected. l shall have the return
of Mr. Reed as delinquent, of course,
corrected"