St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-05-21
Such is the Statement of an Attorney
Who Has Studied Tax Title
Legislation.
Report of the Grand Jury on the
Late Tax Title Shark
Investigation.
Auditor O'Brien Criticized and His
Deputies Raked Vigorously
Over the Goals.
Statements by Men Whose Names
Have Been Mixed Up in the
Business.
WILL MEET THE COMMITTEE.
N1r. H. L.. VILLA ms VIII Explain
The Tn

the Tax.Title Laws.
The committee named by the chamber of
commerce yesterday awaited upon Mr.. ii.
l.. Williams and asked him to be present at
meeting to-day and give the results of his
investigation into the tax laws. Mr.. VIII
liams has studied the exact status of the
original legislative act, as it stands now I'M
der the amendments, and will probably
meet the committee as desired. To GLOBE
reporter he gave the following yesterday,
in an interview after members Of the COM
mittee had waited on him:
The business of buying valuable property
at tax-sales for mere song is disreputable.
No man with high sense of honor can engage
In it. But to collect it's revenues the state
must use means somewhat harsh and per-
emptory. Our present laws for collecting
taxes and city assessments are unnecessary,
harsh and severe. The property of honest
and even ignorant or careless owners should
be guarded. The danger has been, however,
greatly exaggerated. Prior to 1874 our laws
for the collection of general taxes were very
loose, so that many wealthy people refused to
pay their taxes, or paid only such sums as
they saw fit to offer the authorities.
In 1874 the legislature took UP the matter
and directed the committee on taxation,
with the aid of the state auditor, county
auditor and some person learned in the law
to be appointed by the governor to prepare
new law. The governor appointed James
Gilfllan. The committee so aided made re-
port and the legislature enacted chapter of
the laws of 1874. By this act on the third
Monday of June following the year in which
trxes were levied the county auditor was
Quired to commence proceedings in the dis
trict court for the collection of delinquent
taxes on real estate. The act directed sale
for the shortest term of years Of the property
which any bidder would give for the amount
due for taxes, and if no one would bid term
>G, tba,, fIa ,k,01a OH ha
offered and sold. This provision for sale of
a term of years was stricken out by the legis
lature of 1875. The law was new, and there
was considerable friction in operating it. and
1t was considerably amended in 1875, 1876 and
1877. By the law, as it then stood, it was
provided that an action to test the validity of
the tax sale, and the certificate Hereunder
might be brought, and in any such action If
it should appear that the taxes for which
snch sale was made, had, prior to
such sale been paid, or that such
lands were not subject to taxation or that any
defects to such sale existed at the time of
the making thereof, such certificate and all
proceedings in the entry of such judgme MT
shall be adjudged void and such sale set
aside. The act further provides that the
time of redemption should not expire until
after sixty days notice by the auditor to the
owner, such notice to be served by the
sheriff. By another act by the same legisla-
ture the courts were allowed in their discre-
tion to set aside any tax sale. The next
legislature, which convened in 1878, at
the instance of parties
DEALING IN TAX TITLES,
as is generally believed, under the pretext Of
revising and compiling the laws as to taxes,
passed as a new law. This law seems to
have been framed in the interest of tax
buyers, and nearly every provision for the
protection of the owners of real estate was
omitted. The authors of that law and the
members of the legislature who passed it and
subsequent laws, believe, are the persons to
be blamed for the present condition of things,
and not the courts. The supreme court de-
cided that emitting the provisions requiring
the notice by the auditor, l have referred
to, from the act, did not repeal the provision.
Thereupon, in 1881, the legislature, then in
session, expressly repealed, or attempted to
repeal, this provision. All this harangne
about the supreme court is uncalled for and
foolish, 1 think. Parties feeling that a great
wrong had been perpetrated 'slashed about
without stopping to investigate the matter
and ascertain who were the guilty parties. 1t
is foolish to expect that the supreme court
can protect citizens against unwse or corrupt
legislation. The legislature, you know, can
pass any law it pleases, except
in so far as restrained by
the constitution and the courts are bound to
declare them valid, however harsh they may
be- No state in the Union, to my mind, can
boast court of greater purity or ability than
Minnesota, and 1t is very unWlse to destroy or
weaken the respect in which it is held by the
people. The legislature did the mischief,
and to it the people must look for relief. 1t
is not difficult to suggest the relief. If the
provisions for the protection of property
owners as it existed in 1877 can be inserted in
the law, there will be little if any cause
of complaint. a provision requiring
final decree of the court upon
personal notice to the owner or if that is i'm
possible such other notice as the court may
direct before the title of the tax buyer shall
be uperfect, has been suggested somewhat
similar to the final decree required in suits to
foreclose mortgages.
Several prominent attorneys who heard
Mr.. Williams views indorse them and think
his ideas as to the cause and remedy are
correct and believe the ideas by him ex-
pressed should be promulgated for the bene-
tit of property holders generally.