The Opelousas courier., 1886-08-28
Open Letter to Auditor Steele.

Hon o. B. STEELE, Auditor-Sir: In
; your comm anication of the 10th inst,
published in the Opelousas COURIER,
you charge me with misquoting the law,
doing Injustice to Mr.. Duson and mis-
leading the people.
| This is q serious accusation and COM
pels me to appear again in print. Since
You have arraigned me before the pub
| lie, shall put you some plain interroga-
tories which, as public official, it will
be your duty to answer. The public
can then Judge who is wrong and has
misled the people.
In your communication you seem to
| think. because you have shown that the
Goth of july was not the time for the
final settlement of collectors accounts,
that nothing more need be said-that
the people have been misled and injus.
tice has been done to officials.
Permit me to say, as to my assertion
I did not pretend to quote) in the mat
ter of the date of final settlements, L
took it from you on the 9th of July last,
when you gave me the statement. On
that occasion you said to me that you
had caused the law to be changed, and
that Mr.. Duson had until July 20 to
make his final settlement for 1885. You
did not say when you had the law amen
ded, but the new revenue law was not
then in force and I quite naturally sup
posed the change had been made at a
former session of the Legislature. Not
being then familiar with the revenue
laws knew nothing of their various
changes, but knowing the duties of yonr
Office required you to be fully posted, /
fell into the error of taking the law from
YOU instead of the books. Be assured
shall not repeat this mistake. -,
But what does it amount to after all
Absolutely nothing of any consequence
The law, you say, required collectors &c
j make their final settlements during the
first ten days after the 10th day OF Jan
uary of each year. According to this,
, Mr.. Duson was required to make hii
final settlement for the delinquent taxes
: of 1884 between the 10th and goth o.
January. 1886. Did he do soY 1or
know he did not.
! Now, what was your duty ' Here Il
. is plainly laid down in the law:
..If any tax collector fails or neglects t.
make d settlement provided Tor Dy law; ~
shalI forfeit the commission SO allowed him
and interest ut the rate of i've per cent pc
month on the sum withheld, to be computed
from the time the same should have been pait
until actual payment; and the Andltof
Public Accounts and Police Jury shall charg
said delinauent accordingly, and immedlatel.
after sueh delinquency shall occur. requir
: the District Attorney Of the district or paris
I | wherein such tax collector may perform III
functions to proceed against snch coilecto
and his securities by rule before any court .
! competent Jurisdiction, after three Gays nc
! tiee. for the recovery of the amount due D
n the tax collector. See Sec. $3.50 New Revise
= : Statutes. which correctly emboaies Acts G
1882 and 1884.
. Have you complied with these plain
} mandatory provisions of the law u
. your books show that you have charge
up the forfeiture of commissions and
, y per cent per month ON the $8363 baianc
!. / therein charged against Mr.. Duson fo
3 the year 1892 And have you require
= the District Attorney to proceed againf
the collector The law says you mui
y do so Immediately. But the same set
ton goes further and declares:
,f aIt shall be the duty of the Auditor, in ca!
:. anv tax collector shall withhold his settl
u sment more than twenty days after the tin
Q. fixed by law, to send q certified statement
his account to the Judge Of the district: wi
r shall be required to give 1t IN speciai chaft
to the Grand Jury"
u Have you complied with this farth'
:. . requirement of the laW9 You know th
:. You have not obeyed any of these pr
yisions-that the account for 1854 r
mains unsettled to this day-and y
YOU rush into print to make weak ape
- : ogies for the collector.
:; = You again ring the changes on =" q
- - feetive descriptions and assessment
- and evidently expect the people to
satisfied with such chaff.
That it is chaff is easily shown.
ed Since the adoption of the CONSTITUTE
z of 1879 we have had in force the sar
a. system of taxation and practically t
10 same system of revenue laws You 9
your books show that the tax collect
of st. Landry " promptly accounted
by collections y prior to your induction ]
on to Office and that his settlements sht
n credits or deductions as follows
an 1880. Sll75; for 1881, 1885; for lss
". 1929; and for 1883, $3540-in effe
that he made his intermediate and iii
al settlements, for each of those years,
of the time aud in the manner required
ch law. You ought to know that the G
lector had better facilities and legal
nliances to correct errors of descriptl
m and assessment and to enforce the G
~ ~ lection of taxes in 1884 than he had
G liz 1ss0-Sl go and 1883.
~ Indeed, the law imposes upon the
lector, not the Auditor, the duty OF c
-. recting erroneous assessments. Her
aIs pc, is. the same law you refer to, but fai
~ TO auote-sec. 65 revenue act 1882
IF any error In the description of any
nertv or owners name be discovered Dy
Z tax collector or sheriff" mot youl :" IL shai
5. ~ his DUTY to note the correct description
lty name n % on the tax rolls, and to advertise
sell said property by its correct description
This law has been in force since
md year 1882 and is in force now. Un
{ is it's operation the collector managed
M. earrect the erroneous assessments
descriptions of 1883 without the All
your instructions, to make forced col
ion fiops without your aid, and to fin
10 settle for the taxes OF that year
T vet you would have us believe he nt
ed yonr instructions to comply with
law in 1884 and 1885.
/ Id You seem to forget that the law d
directly with the collector and stel
imposes upon him certain duties al
nse severe penalties, which you are reg
cts ed to enforce.
The low va % the eollector his inst