Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1883-01-24
CITY COUNCIL.
\ regular semi monthly meeting of TIL
City Council was held last night

AZ SPSStdeolS dppSdlSu WI lue UdI.
Mr.. Risheill, from the Committee on Gen
erai Laws, to whom was referred several
months ago bill in regard to sign posts,
awning and other distractions on King
street, returned the same with recolamen.
dation that the matter be indefinitely postpo-
ned, as there was already sufficient law on
the subject
After some explanations to the queries Of
several members the report Of the commit
tee was adopted
red the resolution changing the name ofthc
market Building" to "City Hall" reported
in favor of its adoption.
Mr.. Risheill explained the proprietv Of
making the change.
Mr.. Strauss favored retaining the present
name.
. Mr.. J. b. Smoot could see no real reason
for the change
Mr.. Marbury moved that the recommend
alton OF the committee be non-c oncurred in,
which motion prevailed.
communication from the Mayor in re-
gard to property purchased by the city at
the tax sale in 1879 was received and read
as follows:
MAYORS OFFICE,
ALEXANDRIA, VA, Jan. % 1888;
Gentlemen otMr city (auncii:
For some time past have been in consultation
with one or two Of the city officers in regard tn
the real estate which has been bought in by the
City Council for unpaid taxes This morning
c;l.lcu To sec the Commissioner of Revenue, and in
reply t" my inquiry, was informed by him that
he was now assessing the real estate for the COM
ing year, and that he was assessing no property
either for city ~ State tardtion that had been plr.
chased by tho City Council of Alexandria and
which was on record in the clerks Office, evil
denced by tax sao certificates given the city at or
about the time these sales were made
am fully persuaded that it was the object of
the City Council i'll advertising and selling this
class of property only to collect from dclinuuent
taxpayers, what was and had been due for years.
and am also fully satisfied that the City Council
would he very willing to transfer this property to
us original owners upon the payment of the
amount due the city ut the time Of these tar sales
In my opinion, the question now is has or will
the desired object of the City Council be obtained
unless it shall, by some reliable judicial decision.
be able to establish its right rs to the ownership
OF the property purchased at these tax sales? Ii
the property purchased by the CITY Council is
really the property OF the city, then the city
should enter and take possession of all property
bought in for her account but if the sales will not
stand the teste of law then the city should ut
once so declare, and let this property, now nomi-
nally held, be assessed bv the Commissioner of
Revenue for both city and State taxation | am
crculbly Informed that not one single piece OF
property purchased By the City Council is in pos.
session OF the city authorities. am also informed
SO far rs it relates to the improved property that
| it is either in possession of the original owner
who resides i'll it without rent taxation or it is
III possession of the original owner, who without
| paying or having taxes assessed against him, is
renting out said property and receiving monthly
payments therefor, though nominally this property
Is owned by the city. do not attempt to express
al opinion as to the legality of these sales, but
do say il this system is to continue it will be to
the interest of every taxpayer (for real csae) to
refuse payment of his texes, permit his property to
DC SOLD to the city and occupy rent it for the rest
| OF his life without assessment by city or State
consider this matter of vital importance affecting
The interest Of every tax payer in the city, and should
receive, ts 1t justly deserves, attention nj Your
hands AS above said if the property belongs to the
city let il enter and take losss>nn il the tax sale is
worthless let the matter he decided and let all this
property he taxed that the city and State may receive
what is justly due upon each piece Do not let TN,
city Council he lmr,y 10 dcrvinS the city State
! OF its just revenue There are some twenty or
thirty cases in which property owncrs have come for
ward ana paid into the city treasury the amount for
but they DO not compose uncenth Of the amount OF
| property bid in by the city.
have been informed that in several instances that
TIE collectors OF taxes have refused money from per-
SONS who came to them To pay taxes that accrued for
Tue year lsS2 upon the ground TINT bills were in
bought in by the city, assessments were made some
OF oar citizens it seems from this willing to pay
1 city will
receive II, but willing to stand suit ON the old TIM
bills Tor which their property Inns been sold and bought
might also add that in settling the taxes .s shown
by tax sulc certificates and claiming release of their
property under the net of the City Council ii done after
the assessor made his assessments for 1882 the owner
Is relieved from taxation for 1852 the city has nothin
AGAINST the property except bills prior to the sale moth
ing having been assessed since the sale wIs nnde for
the reason above suited that the property belongs To
the city and not liable to taxation. | think it will be
well for the city to take such steps as will SETTLE The
question of ownership, that the question for taxes
for lss2 may be put in such shape rs to be collected
from the original owners if the city sustain its
title. "
| make these suggestions that you may take such
| steps as you may deem advisable.
! am very truly yours,
| j. I. BECKII.lAI. Mayor
Mr. Klsheill moved that the paper be re-
terred TO the Finance Committee,
Mr. j. Z. Smoot opposed such reference
| The matter had better be left with the Nav
or. The Finance Committee had been CON
slderlng the subject some time. and so far
had been unable to fix upon any satisfacto-
ry mode of procedure He would like to
KNOW the views of the Mayor on the sub
Ieet and would therefore move that the
communication be referred back to him in
order that that official might suggest TO
Council some plan of action on this cmbar.
RAISING question.
Mr.. Strauss, while he would vote for Mr..
smoot's motion, could see no good reason
for such action. The Mayor in sending the
communication to Council plainly implied by
making no recommendation that he had no
opinion TO offer.
Mr.. Risheill gave his reasons for desiring
that the communication be referred TO the Fl.
nance Committee. There were things con-
neeled with this perplexing question which
1t would be iuopportune to make public,
yet the same could be considered in private
Mr. Smoot again urged that the paper be
referred back to the Mayor. He, the
speaker, would not venture legal opinion
in regard to validity of the tax sale Of 1879
but he always noticed when the CITY was
the plaintiff in a law suit, the case dragged
its SLOW length until it became monotonous:
when the corporation was the defendant
however, it went through the courts with
skip, hop and jump.
Mr.. Risheill thought great deal of these
back taxes could have been collected bv
levying on personal property in past wears
and thereby all this bother been avoided
Mr.. Smoot undertook to show the dificnI.
ties of scizing personal property at all
times for taxes, and said the tax collectors
were efficient officers on6 narf,rn,oj a.