St. Landry democrat., 1886-08-28

thereafter, that is January 22d, or as
soon thereafter as practica Die it was his
duty to advertise for sale their property
and on or before the the 1st day of May
1885 or as soon thereafter as possible to
complete these sales. See new K. s.
Sec. 2223333 , 22236 and 2243.
1t is manifest that the lawmaker in
tended these sales TO be closed on or be-
| fore May LIST, for any other construction
would render the provisions of section
2236 utterly nugatory and make the law
declare in one place that the collector
shall advertise ON the 22d OF Jan. and in
another that he shall do 80 on the 1st Of
May. Hence it wss the plain duty of the
collector to complete such sales at that
time but he failed to comply with these
provisions and did not as matter OF
fact advertise until October 10th 1885
and did not sell until Nov. 21st. 1885.
From all can learn these sales did not
aggregate $1,000, and conceding it all to
be for State taxes alone, it would fall far
short of settling a balance OF 1866.
! Have you any return of these sales IL
your office? You certainly do not pre-
tend that the collector had not time
enough to make that return before the
burning of the courthouse.
Let he remind you OF another fact 1t
has never been the practice in St. Ian
dry, to copy III the assessment rolls the
descriptions OF real estate and whether
it be in compliance with the law or Mt,
it is nevertheless Il fact. This accounts
fully for your statement that mot one
property ID twenty on the assessment
rolls is correctly described.' But that
fact has never prevented tax sales, and
did not prevent sales for taxes of 1884 as
the collector always has the assessment
lists in his Office where he can get des-
criptiOn OF all property assessed, and the
fact that the assessment rolls do not
contain descriptions Of property, has
never formed any impeachment to tax
sales 1t did not in 1881 SO SO and why
should it in 1884.
You accepted the roll of 1884 copy of
which was filed in the collectors office
and upon thatroll the collector proceed
ed to collect the taxes fit was not made
in compliance with the law you should
have rejected it but you did not, and it is
too late to talk now about its defective
descriptions, especially as the collector
had the assessment lists from which it
was made, and which contained all the
descriptions needed for tax sales.
on say that You have given instruc-
tons to the collector to prepare a list
with correct descriptions by boundaries
OF all property on which taxes for 1884
and 1885 are due and unpaid and that, il
that he done the State will either col
lect the taxes or acquire the property"
As the data from which alone such q
list could be made, were destroyed by
fire, please to inform US hOU you expect
the collector to construct such lIstY
I on also say Your books show that
since your induction into office Git was
in 1884 the tax collector of St. Landry
has promptly accounted for collec.
tons made by him as tax collector and
yet your books show balance due by
him of 1868, for 1884 and S9324 for 1885,
the first two years of your office. lou
have queer ideas of promptitude.
Why did you not say all collections!
That would have covered the case and
closed the door to much comment. 1t
is the precise information needed and
trust you will give it.
Until it is shown, all you can say about
deduction or delinquent lists and erie
neous assessments will amount to moth
ing, and I shall decline to discuss the
matter further.
In conclusion | ask you the direct
question.
Has the tax collector of st. Landry ac-
counted for and paid into the Treasury
all the taxes or monies received by him
for taxes for the years 1884 and 1885.
. Ii you say yes, please state how you
know it.
II you say no or that You do not know,
then think you had better drop the dis
cussion. Respectfully yours,
Z. r. LEWIS.