Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1888-11-01
Those Abatement Orders!

The Signal and MAIIey's sheet last
week each devoted a column or moro
to the fact that abatement ORDERS had
been issued to Mr.. CahlII, for the pay
ment Of his attorney fees In the cases
for the collection of delinquent taxes,
They make mention Of this as though
It was something new and just dis
covered, while the facts are that all Of
the attorneys who have had any tax
collecting cases for several years past,
have drawn these fees in the same
manner, and the allowance Of the at
torney fees in those cases and the
Issuing of those abatement orders for
payment thereof, has been as public
as any other proceeding in or about
the Commissioners Office. Nor has
Mr.. Cahill been the only attorney who
has received his fees in tax cases in
that way. For an instance, ]. H. Ty-
Ter had $217 in these abatement orders
issued to him as attorney fees In tax
cases, (see journal 7, p 50,) as did all
the other attorneys who Of late years
have been employed to collect delin-
quent taxes by suit.
Upon examination of the files In the
Auditors Office we find that Mr.. Cahill,
in the tax cases, presented his bill for
his attorney fees to the County Com
missioners, settling forth in each bill
the title and number of the case as 1t
can be found in court, the amount col
lected, together with description of
the real estate sued for taxes in the
case SO entitled and numbered.
This bill is passed upon by the Com
missioners the same as any other bill
presented to them for allowance, and if
allowed they order this bill paid out of
all funds; and in order to draw the
amount so allowed out Of all funds,
they order the Auditor to draw an
abatement order to the attorney to
whom the bill was allowed. This
abatement order then draws out of the
same funds collected in the case.
The only object in paying the at
torney fees in this way, is to let each
fund pay an equitable portion of the
expenses in making this collection and
avoid paying all of these expenses out
of the county fund. To the attorney
1t makes no difference whether his fees
are paid out of the same money col
lected or out of the county fund. Our
Commissioners in ordering the attor-
ney fees paid in this way, had in view
saving to the county fund; instead of
the tax payers of this county paying
all the expenses in the collection of
these taxes, they deemed it just and
proper that each fund pay in proper
ton to the amount it collected, re-
quiring the State fund as well as the
other funds of the county, to assist In
bearing the expenses in collecting its
taxes. The allowance of these fees
never exceeded ten per cent. in any
case, hence, each fund received, clear
of all expenses of collection, the full
amount of the levy together with five
per centum of penalty, the whole
penalty being fifteen per cent.
If this is not right and according to
tuc icCbcE VI Luc ldWi tucu tAlO WoLoo
that can be said, is that our Commits
isiUners have made u enaalt error I'm
their endeavor to save the county a
little money, and have only guarded
too zealously the county fund which is
paid by and belongs to the people of
this county.
These Republican papers in their
mad endeaver to obtain votes for their
party by deceiving the people and
blackguarding the character of the
county officials, published an ac-
count of the manner of making these
abatement orders, but gave no reasons
at all for their go doing, and asked the
voters to presume that the county
officials did this ''to fill their pockets
at the expense Of the people," To
show the reckless manner in which
they make false statements, we refer
the reader to their addition of figures
in each of these papers. The amount
which they total as 81 ,393.33, is but 81, :
103.30. Let us see whether the bills
allowed by the Commissioners in these
tax cases were reasonable, and, il
reasonable, then how can the county
or the people be injured.
| For the time covered by the Signal
/ and Malley's sheet, say a year and a
half, from October 6, 1885 to November
Is, 1887, Mr.. Cahill presented his bills
in ninety-eight tax cases, one of which
was in the Uuited States Court and
two in the Supreme Court of Ohio
His fees in all of these cases, includ-
ing those in the higher courts, aggre-
gated 1,4O6.5S, which would be an
average of $14.35 a case. Leaving out
| the three cases which were in the
higher courts, the attorney fees In
the other ninety-tive cases which were
in the Common Pleas and Circuit
Courts, would be 81 ,0481 being $1l .0s
for each case. The fees charged in the
two cases in the Supreme Court oi
Ohio being $166.47, and for the one ir
the United States Court $l91 .94. These
charges are much less than attorneys
! do similar services for individuals.
Now let US compare these attorney
. fees of Mr.. Cahill, with the fees O
other attorneys who have been EN-
ployed by the county, and for an In
stance, we will cite Hon. J. III. Tylel
who was employed to defend the c0un
: 'lty in q case In the United States Cour
entitled, - Goshorn, VS.. Henry coun
ty. In this one case Mr.. Tyler charges
J the county the sum Of $1,071.55, a
shown by vol. A of Commissioners
Journal, page 1892, docket bill 439; ant
an additional sum of $83 was allowet
Mr.. Tylers's assistant in that case, as Il
: shown by the same journal and page
docket bill 43S, making in all 81 ,l54.55