Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-30
Dciisqucnt Lands.
Pulaski People.l


As this question seems to be upper
most in the minds OF the people, and in
no little degree sgitating the legislators,
we give for the benefit Of our readers
and representatives the following facts
relative to the lands returned delin-
quent in Pulaski. They prove very
clearly how fallacious it is in thus time
and again returning said lands, thereby
annoying the people, taking up the time
of the Auditor in continually keeping
them on his books, and making trans
fers and annoying county treasurers.
Our county treasurer, Mr.. Morehead,
has furnished US the following facts and
figures
There are in all GIG tracts returned
delinquent. Thirty-four tracts are
charged TO the present owners. The
larger part Of these may be all right,
but some are not. One hundred and
four tracts are charged to the original
owners-that is, charged to the parties
who owned the land previous to the
present possessors. Some Of the 104
are correct, as the last purchasers failed
to record their deeds or have the land
charged to themselves, but the prin-
cipal part Of them are like the follow
ing:
j. r. Radcliffe had two tracts ofland;
in one 57I acres and the other u. lie
sold to Mr.. Henry Trollinger sixty-fve
acres. The commissioner, instead of
transferring both tracts, simply can
celled the 571 acres, charged Mr.. Troe
linger with IS acres, and failed to erase
from his books the other tract of u
acres which is charged both to Mr..
Trollinger and Mr.. Radcliffe.
Fourteen tracts are charged to men
without being located. This was done
when the law required man to be a
freeholder in order to vote. These, of
course, should be erased from the books,
nine tracts are charged to parties who
nerer owned land in Pulaski. In some
cases an error was made in the name,
charged to one party when it should
have been another. Some parties made
deeds to lands when they had no title
themselves, thereby rendering their
claim null and void. and others where
false entries were made of supposed
vacant land.
Six tracts are charged on church pro-
perty, when every body knows that such
property is exempt from taxation.
Three tracts the parties hold receipts
of w. X. Smith. Three tracts are er-
rors where no land existed, by land not
holding out to original charge. upon a
recent survey and division among heirs.
Two tracts are on the road-bed Of
the McAdam road. Who is to pay for
these?
One tract is twice charged on the de-
linquent- book for the same year.
S. w. Meredith is charged with two
tracts Of land Of sixty acres each, on
handbook, when he never owned but
one tract. Now, why not make final
settlement Of these errors: Some dis
position surely should be made by the
present Legislature. or else they will
forever be on the books. Dispose of
them, and then make law by which
each year is to take care Of itself. If
the land must be sold, why not sell it
at once, instead Of putting it off and
reporting it every five years as delin-
quent and allowing the interest to ac-
crue. The results Of the present law
prove its ineficiency, and unless it is
amended we are to be annoyed for all
time with this same state Of affairs.