The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1886-08-07
Open letter TO Auditor steele.


Hon. o. B. Steele, Auditor: A letter of July
oath, from you to Mr.. G. C Duson, sheriff and
tax collector of st. Landry. evidently written
for publication, has been recently published
in all the local newspapers of flIis parish You
say therein, Ia connection with statement
of Mr. DnsoD's tax account for the Years 1884
aud 1886, handed to me by yourself, that yen
fully explained to me the defective as
sessmemt rolls for 1884 and 1885 y" that yon
q fully explained TO me that prior to the loss
deduction list for 1884; that it had been re-
turned to him by you for correction" that
ueuding this settlement these lists " were re-
ported lost by the burning of the Courthouse,
thereby delaying the settlement and prevent
ing his account from receiving the credits to
which it was entitled, as shown by these state
ineuts"; and, finally, that you - do not see
Why written memorandum whic,t cores
ponds with statements published in the news
papers months ago, should OCCASION at this
time any unmerifed comment, and especially
Flien all the facts connected with the matter
we're made known at the time the statement
was given 7; and that yoa feel assured will
do Mr.. Duson the Justice to give TO those
Off bis ''peopie who do not understand this
matter the explanation yon gave me :. at the
time you Furnished the information asked
forn by me,
The effect, whether designed or net, of all
this il, to make me responsible for what you
style unmerited comment" upon MI Du-
sons official conduct us tax collector; and as
the public prints have been used to convey to
the people this charge plainly implied In yonr
letter, must avail myself OF the Same chan
mel to reply. have no objection to your max
ing any Defense or explanation or excuse yon
may think proper in Mr.. Dusan's behalf, but
do object to being made responsible for COM
ments, uumerited or otherwise. growing out
of indisputable facts connected with his adj
! ministration of the office of tax collector ot
! i41,s, so1, n8 pthA nps. ~ lHh
have no oeontrol-facts, as you say published
months ago.
The written statement you gave me is ~
follows:
Statement of Id9es for Years 1884 and 1885
charged aud collected iss 81. Landry parish
during 1884, 1885 aud 1886, TO Mar. III, 1886.
TAXES 1884
Assessment 81, ,337, $40 90 q mills $26 ,025 AZ
Paid in during year lss4--s lss4 l6Sa 66a ss ss
1885, $40 25 1861 "a
Bulance $8363 48
The deduction list 1884 taxes submitted to
Auditor and returned to tax collector was
destroyed by lire pending final settlement
Taxes 1885,
Assessment %, POI, $1,000 at mills. $25, ,2l8 81
Paid in during iss5..--..$ 600 y
=. 1885,. 1926 70 1886 "a
Balance. .-..---- 1854 y
This statement does not iuclade settlement
for second quarter 1886
o b. STEELE, Auditor.
4TH LEvEE TAxEs 1885.
Assessment $l63, $4,000 at mills. -. $50 !:
Paid in during 1886. 56s Il
Balance .$245 81
o. B. STEELE, Auditor.
was astonished 10 learn for the first tins
flor like many others had not seen your pub
iished statements) that Mr.. Duson was so fa
behind Your explanation to me, all OF whiel
and mere TOO, is contained in your letter, fail
ed to account satisfactorily tor the deficit, es
neeiaIly for the year 1884. The burning OF tht
|, Courthouse IN Mnrch, 1886, eight months afte
the final settlement for that year should hayt
been made, and the destruction Of the return
ed and rejected deduction lists by fire at tha
time, seems TO nae but . lame excuse The iav
required that this deduction list should b
submitted and d final settlement maaie by tht
Goth of July, 1885, for Ail taxes due aud col
lectabIe for the year 1884 III that was done
there was ample time between that date AMI
, the bnrning of the Courthouse March, 1886,
to have had these lists corrected aud Returned
to yon Inexcusable neglect alone could &C
! count, Ia this view, for theis loss by fire; ant
to allow the collector this plea would Civ
him tue benefit of his own negligence.
On the other hand, if it was not submittel
on tile 10Th of July, be failed to comply viii
j ihe law. and the same rule would deny hiu
the right to claim relief from his own laches
Iil either view, it is an explanation fha
' does not Explain.
Add to this the fact that yea do not sa
7 when this deduction list was fled or when re
turned to the collector that you dc not sa.
what errors it contained or in what respect
needed correction, nor what amount OF credi
: the collector was entitled to; and I think y0
Niil agree that il was not much OF an expiS