The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1883-05-19


issued only npon the
application of the delinquent at
ter paying his taxes to redeem
prope rty, and at his cost. As tho
sued had not paid their taxes.
there was certainly no occasion for issu
ing certificates of redemption. and ut
date few, if any. were issued.
The State has nothing to do with the
collection IF this fee. and 1t was not re-
mitted by the Constitution. 1.-THE Auditor
had any claim it was against the State,
and your committee is therefore Unable
t" find upon what groundslthis claim Of
$29,l8l was recognised by the Board.
The CLAIM Of the Attorney Genersln
lowed, for S17.523 IA, was for commits
"n the total am"".,t If judgments
obtained against delinquent Tax payers.
His fees are regulated by law on the
amount collected and paid into the
State Treasury, aud not on the amount
of judgments obtained. While the At
tornry General was entitled to remu-
neration for services actually rendered
yet W. think to have entitled him to
the full commissions allowed, the Board
should have required evidence of the
sums realized by the State under these
judgments, and we find no such evil
dence.
Concerning the validity Of the other,
We are unable to judge. for the
reason set forth above.
A CAREFUL examination of the docu
ments in the Auditors possession dis
closes no itemized bills. and wa are at
loss to know how The Board could
have acted i%ntelligently upon the mere
presented.
Much of the difficulty seems to have
been obviated. however, by a resort to
the certificate plaza scheme fraueht
with great danger to our people, bril-
conceived and successfully ere.
cuted in the days Of Radical suprem-
acy.
AS to the claims of G~authreaux and
others, the records show that in many
cases these fees were from three to sew
en- times more than the taxes sued for.
ANA as many as five suits were entered
against one party, when n suit would
have been Sufficient.
The second meeting of the Board was
held on the 10Th day Of May. 1880. At
this meeting. judgments in the follow
ing cases were read aud spread upon
the minutes:
Board Of Administrators of the Tn;
of Louisiana IS. Louis A. Wilt
ct ais, No. 26.225, Sd District Court,
New Orleans; Emile P. Roux vs. Louis
A. Wiitz. Governor, ct ais. No. O 1858,
5th District Court. New Orleans ; and
j. N. Seixas vs.. Louis A. Wiltz. Chair
man, ct ais. No. l1.OOs, 9th District
New Orleans.
These several suits enjoined the
Board from examining, auditing and 40
proving any claims for costs, and fees.
or claims for costs or fees or charges
for the purpose Of having the same or
any part thereof received in payment
ofany taxes and licenses due the State
Of Louisiana prior to January l, 1879.
On the ground that Act No. 90 of 1880.
creating the Board. was unconstitution
Al.
The following is a copy of the judg-
"The Court considering the
'aw. evidence and consent cfparties. 1t
ordered that the injunction herein is
sued he made peremptory and absolute .
md the defendants be adjudgcd and de
creed perpetually to refrain from exam
ming. auditing and approving any
or claims for costs, or fees or
for the purpose of having the
same or any part thereof received in
payment of any taxes aud licenses due
State of Louisiana prior to January
|, 1879 ; and it is further adjudged BY
Tie consent Of the plaintiffs that the de-
Fendants shall be and are hereby author
ized to audit. examine and pass upon
md approve claims embraced in the
terms Of Act No. 90 of 1880. for the pur |