St. Landry democrat., 1886-08-28
Open Letter TO Auditor steele.
Hon. o. 4. Steele. Auditor.

Sir In your communication of the
/ 10th inst published IN the Opelousas
Courier, you charge me with misquot-
ing the law, doing injustice to Mr. Du-
son and misleading the people.
This is a serious accusation and COM
pels me to appear again in print.
Siuce you have arraigned me before
the public shall put some plain inter-
rogations which, as Il public official, it
will be your duty to answer. The pub
lie can Judge who is wrong and has mis-
lead the people. In your communica-
ton you seem to think, because you
have shown that the Goth of July was
not the time for the final settlement of
collectors accounts, that nothing more
need be said that the people have been
mislod and injustice has been done to
officials.
Permit me to say, as to my assertion
! (I did not pretend to quote) in the mat
ter of the date OF final settlements
took it from you on the 9th of July last
when you gave me the Statement. On
that occasion You said to me that you
had caused the law to be changed and
that Mr.. Duson had until July Dth to
make lis final settlement for 1880. 10n
| did not say when You had the law am
ended but the new revenue law was not
| iiiCu III La ~ anu IdieS sup
posed the change had been made at
former session of the Legislature. Not
| being then familiar with the revenue
| laws, [ knew nothing of its various
changes but knowing the duties of
your office required you to be fully
| posted | fell into the error Of taking
the law from you instead of the books.
Be assured shall not repeat this mis-
take.
| But what does it amount to after all
| Absolutely nothing OF any consequence.
| The law, you say, required collectors to
| make their final settlements during the
| first ten days after the tenth day of
January of each year according to this
Mr.. Duson WAS required to make his
final settlement for the delinquent taxes
of 1884 between the 10th and Goth Of
January, 1886. Did he do so? You
know he did not.
Now what was your duty Here it is
plainly laid down in the law.
"If any tax collector fails negects to
make settlement provided by law. he shall
forfeit the commission So allowed him, and in
tereSt 1T the rate of five per cent. per month,
on the sum WITHHELD to he computed from the
time the same should have been paid until ac-
tual pa yment and the Auditor of Public Ac-
counts and Police jury shall charge said de
lm4utnts accordingly, and Immediately after
such delinquency shall occur, require the Dist
rict Attorney of the District or parish wherein
such tax collector may perform his functions
to proceed against such collector and his secu-
rites by rule before any court OF competent itl-
risdiction. after three days notice. for the re-
covery of the amount due by the tax collector
See Section $3.50 New Revised Statutes which
correctly emh0die> acts 1852 ana 1884.
Have you complied with these plain,
mandatory provisions of the law ? Do
your books show that you have charged
up the forfeiture of commissions and
five per cent. per month on the &S363
balance therein clurge against Nh. Du
son for the year 1884 ? And have you
required the District Attorney to pro-
coed against the collector The law
says you must do SO Immediately.
But the same section goes further and
declares:
1T shall be the duty of the Auditor in case
any Tax Collector shall withhold his settlement
more than twenty days. after the time fixed by
law, to send certified statement of his ac-
count to the judge of the district, who shall be
required TO give it i'll special charge to the |
Grand jury"
Have You complied with this further |
requirement of the law ? You know /
that you have not obeyed any of these
provisions that the account for 1884 |
remains unsettled to this day and vet |
you rush into print to make weak apOl-
ogies for the collector.
"You again ring the changes on ode
fective descriptions and assessments
and evidently expect the people to be
satisfied with such chatf.
That it is chatf is easily shown.
Since the adoption of the Constitution
of 1879 we have had in force the same
system of taxation and practically the
same system of revenue laws. You say
your books show that the tax collector
of St. Landry promptly accounted for
collections" prior to your induction
inro office and that his settlements
show credits or deductions as follows:
1889, S3123 and for 1883, $500. In eff
feet that he made his intermediate and
final settlements for each of those years
at the the time and in the manner re-
quired by law. You ought to know that
the collector had better facilities and
legal appliances to correct errors of des-
criptiOn and assessment and to enforce
the collection of taxes in 1884 than he
had in 1880 -S2 and 1888.
Indeed the law imposes upon the
collector, not the Auditor, the duty of
correcting erroneous assessments. Here
it is, the same law you refer to, but
failed to quote. Sec. Is revenue act
1882.
IF any error in the description of any prop
erty or owners name be discovered by the tax
collector OF sheriff., (not yOul lit shall be his
duty to note the correct description and name
on the tax rolls. and to advertise and sell said
property by its correct description
This law has been in force since the
year 1882 and is in force row. Under
its operation the collector manage to
correct the erroneous assessments and
descriptions of 1888 without the aid of
a md t.
L. W, Ii helieu4. he naadod ro,,r