St. Paul daily globe., 1885-11-21

Tine general was asked what he thought OF
calling an extra session of the legislature on
this matter, and expressed himself as moi
considering it advisable to do so. The
legislature couldnot do anything to remedy
the evil that he could see. If it should re-
peal the law, that would result in con-
fusion. If they should modify it, that
would result in similar trouble, besides he
did not think any new cases would arise be-
fore the next regular session would con,
vene. This is the first case that has come
up since the former one referred to in the
decision against the st. Paul & Duluth
Railroad company, in vol. ~. Mimi
Reports. So he could not see that any
thing could be gained by cOnvening the
legislature. There might be other reasons
1or assembling the legislature, but this one
alone, in his opinion, would not warrant
such procedure.
THINKS IT IS ALL RIGHT.
w. K. Gaston-What do l think of it,
why think the decision is right. There
was never more correct legal decision rem
dered IN the world. It's founded OIL solid
pfincipie and must stand. / know the OBJ
Jectlon to 1t Is that it is based on construc-
i've notice by publication, which must Oper-
ate, Notwithstanding. as a matter of fact,
the defendant did not have actual
notlce. we have got to rely upon
constructive notice. It's absolutely
impossible to collect taxes in any
other way. 1t is physical and moral i'm
possibility to give personal notice in all
cases. and when constructive notice is
given it must stand, even though in isolated
and very infrequeut cases some harm is the
result. The government cannot be run sc
but that some one will receive
injury. We have not arrived at perfec
ton yet. So far as the record showed
the defendant was notified. He failed tC
appear and defend and judgment was rem
dered against him. Every non-reSiden
who owns property in Minnesota can d(
the same thing and make the same com
plant against notice by publication. Such
might say they did not live in the state o
Minnesota and did not see the notice. That
however. would make no difference; th'
Judgment against any such non-residen
will stand and be in force. Such Judgment
always have stood, and they are precisel.
the same as this one. Whether the defend
ant resides in Minnesota or in foreigl
state makes no difference. If the defend
ant resides in Ramsey county, owns lane
in Winona county, the notice is published
in paper in the latter county and he doe
not see it, the case is precisely the same a
though he lived in New York
Ii constructive or published notice
is good against the man tina
lives in New York, it is equally as gooG
against the man in Ramsey county. Bott
do not know that the property is delinquen
because both have their tax receipts, ant
both are equally ignorant of the published
notice. No distinction can be made be-
tween these cases. The nonresident anC
the resident of Minnesota stand in the same
light. Each is bound to look out for these
delinquent taxes. Everybody knows when
they are due and payable, or ought to. Il
they do not it is their own fault, No per-
son need be caught unawares. Everybody
knows that delinquent taxes are sold.
There is no use to call the legislature to,
gether tor this purpose. 1t will make nc
difference. That body cannot change the
matter,