St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-05-21
TWO AUDITORs TALK.
Auditor O'Brien Says He Has Been
Simply Following Precedent.

Auditor O'Brien Says He Has Been
simply Following Precedent.
Auditor O'Brien was in his office yester-
day. and attended to business as If grand
1uries had never been heard of.
"Of course" said he to GLOBE reporter,
There Is good deal of politics in this busi-
ness. would not say word III they had re-
ported on all the evidence furnished them.
AS to Pugsley and Dean, If they have vio-
lated the law, the jury should so find, but no
charge OF violating any law has been brought
against me. / issued those deeds because
the law requires me to. Auditors that have
preceded me have done the same. The grand
jury did not mention these. Under section
lOl OF the state tax laws hold am requ ired
to issue them"
MI O'Brien said he was still in the
ring, and was doing little Investigating
himself, and now that the grand jury had
investigated. he wanted to get to the bot
tom of the whole matter, and let no guilty
man escape. Auditor O'Brien said that on
the day prior to his coming into the Office, a
number of these final deeds had been given
out, and it appeared from the books to be
the usual thing. The date in question was
Jan. 8, 1885, and the property was lots to
6. block 3, and lots l, 2 and 8. block 2, of
Eaton q Morrison's addition. They were
bid in for the state Sept. 90, 1880, and the
record shows the title to have been held
prior to that by 81. S. Fairchild. The deeds
were issued to C. A. Congdon. Mr.
O'Brien said he thought these deeds were
precisely like those that had been given
out by himself. On Sept. "a, 1888. deeds
were given to w. w. Billson for lots II to
"a, block II, of Arlington hills. There are
numerous others, among the number being
nineteen lots in blocks 1 to 6, in E. G.
FullerS addition, on which the deeds were
given to j. E. Gilmer. Auditor O'Brien
said it looked as if it had been the common
practice for auditors to issue these final
deeds.
MR.. MCARDY'S EXPLANATION.
Ex-Auditor McCardy said, with reference
to these deeds, given while he was in the
office:
Mr.. Congdon had bought the lots in ques-
ton under the law of forfeited property q
think IN May, 1884. He had list made out
nearly yard in length, embr acing large
number of lots held by others. He stated
he desired to pay the taxes over again on
these to meet the requirements of the law.
rms was property on which l had sent out
postal card notices-which was not required
by law-each year was in the Office, which
virtually made four notices to those inter-
eSted and many ignorant Of the law. This
was after the decision ha been made known
that Congdon called and desired to pay the
taxes for 1879 and 1880, which was a request
to pay the same over again, as he had paid
the taxes on the same before the decision
was made known, he stating that he
understood the first payment was not legal
took his long list and told him would con-
slider the matter before allowing him to pay
taxes on property not held by him. The re-
suit of my consideration was that cut from
the list all the lots save those in his name
and allowed him to pay the taxes over again
on those, and only those, the ruling of the court
being that the original payment for 1879 and
1880 was not correct and was not legal pay
ment. He was, therefore, only allowed to
pay on such lots as L thought he had a right
to by prior sales.