St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-10-16
Judge FIandrau,s Ideas.

Judge Flandrau thought that when
man had paid his taxes. no error in any
Office should make him forfeit it. The
only objection he saw to Mr. Fairchild's
plan was that it might possibly interfere
with the prompt payment of taxes. Mr..
Murray explained the working of the city
assessment lazy requiring personal notice,
and Mr.. Delan0 thought the whole trouble
was in the matter of notice. The present
law was all right with one amendment
that is that every man purchasing taxes
Should within thirty days. serve notice on
the owner Of the property to that effect.
Then serve another notice sixty days before
the expiration of the time of redemption.
Mr.. Murray said he agreed with this, only
he should have the notice served by the
tax collecting officer. Mr.. Fairchld argued
in favor of the extension of time but the
others seemed to be opposed to more than
three years. Mr.. Fairchild also urged that
the proof of payment on one assessment
should be bar to judgment on any double
assessment. Mr.. Rogers thought that there
should be no way in which any tax buyer
could get possession of exempted property,
which can be done under the present law.
Judge Flandrau agreed with this, and also
Mr.. Murray. Mr.. FairchiId wanted
10 hUOW IllO Oln0GS OplUlOn Oh Ilo
proposition of putting the property up at
auction. He thought extraordinary safe
guards should be thrown around the prop
erty of every one. as long as the interest of
the buyers investment was sure and the
county's expense guaranteed. Messrs.
Murray. Rogers and FIandrau hardly CO.
incided with the idea. Mr.. Murray thought
it would be an innovation on any tax law
he ever heard of, but Mr.. Fairchild insisted
that if it was good it did not make any diff
ferunce if it was an innovation.
There was a general discussion of the
city method of collecting assessments which
was approved, although it is hardly mat
ter of accommodation on the part of the
city treasurer. All agreed that what the
city treasurer now does should be incorpOr-
ated in the law as required. Mr.. Sternes
offered the suggestion that notice by publ
cation or notice served on the wrong person
should not take the place of
PERSONAL NOTICE.
AS an instance he said he had lust come
from the county auditors Office, where he
found that service of notices on property
on which redemption was about to expire
was made in two thirds of the cases on
men holding tax titles this being merely
q scheme for these parties to perfect title
in the property and depriving owners Of
the published notice. He said a gentleman
had recently made application to one of the
county auditors of the state for list of the
pieces of the property on which redemp-
ton was about to expire, and was told that
there were but few lands except those on
which title was being perfected in this
way. This idea proved new scheme to
nearly all present for getting title to prop
erty.
The question of street sprinklng was
brought UP, but this was put over for fu-
ture meeting, when Mr. Murray said he
would present bill which he was framing
for discussion. Mr.. Murray was appointed
to formulate the amendments desired and
present them to the next meeting two
weeks from date. All present seemed to
think that there would be 10 trouble with
the men elected to the legislature, as nine
ty-nine men out of a hundred in the city
actually agreed on the tax law amendments.
and the representatives and senators could
be counted on in any case.