Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1890-07-23

EDITOR COURIER:
In order that justice may be done
the Board Of Co. Com. and to the
end that the tax payer Of Union Co.
may know the truth in regard to
bringing forward the back tax, ]
take the liberty to submit this ar
ticle:
First the Leader says, "The Co.
Com ordered all back personal taxes
dating from 1877, brought forward
In answer to this l will say that the
Board never made any such order
for the reason that a law enacted by
the Legislature of the State Of South
Dakota, takes precedence to any
order made by any Board, even il
they were disposed to make one.
The law in question compels the
Go. Clerk to bring these taxes for
ward, and not only forward but
compels him to make almosta COM
plete abstract Of all property ever
owned by any person owing per.
sonal taxes subsequent to the date
or at the time said taxes we're due,
and any person ever having had
anything to do with abstracts or Co.
records knows what this means. No
person could denounce this law in
stronger language than I have,
which can be proven, and | even
went sc far as to ask the Public Ex-
aminor if there was not a way where.
by this law could not be avoided.
l received a circular letter a few
days after, a part Of which is as fol-
lows:
Since issuing my circulars Of Mich.
81, 80, l have received numerous
inquiries with regard TO how it is
possible for Auditors and Clerks to
comply with the requirements of
bill No. s passed by the leg
islature, and l have Information
that some boards Of Co. Com. refuse
to compensate Auditors for the ex-
ira work and advise them to ignore
the law.
To the latter proposition l will
say that neither Commissioner nor
Auditors have any discretion in the
matter. If such views should OBJ
tain, it would be we'll to abolish the
and allow County Com
.issioners to legislate for the coun-
Ties. l see no way the Commission
ers can avoid paying for the extra
clerical assistance, providing it is
necessary and actually rendered.
so much for this part.
Second, "The board inquired of
!. w. Ellis, County Clerk, what he
would do the job for, and replied
1000, but finally agreed to allow
Tim $500 per day until the work
vas completed"
In answer to the above I will say
hat it is untrue and no semblance
Il truth in it. The facts are, after !
vas satisfied the work had to be
lone, and also knowing that I could
lot be expected to do a piece of
york of this magnitude for nothing,
made the Board the following
Proposition: / would take the con-
ract for s60OO or do it by the day
nd for each days work to receive
he sum of $500, which later prop
sition was accepted. The work has
cen commenced and well under
Jay and l now believe that it can
done for half the amount repre-
anted by the Leader or about $500.
t is conceded by all that when this
York is completed it will be a good
nd money making scheme fortle
as there is about $1,000 90
4 old delinquent personal tax on
he delinquent list, but just what
art Of it may be collected by reason
{ its being II lien on real estate, |
m unable to say. This tax may as
'ell be collected as to remain where
is doing no II any good, and it
, hoped will he many times more
han enough to pay ali the expense
onnected with it. AS | have told
number of my friends in answer
the charge of receiving $500 per
ear from the county, am only
orry that | call not command the
bove sum and that / can not
ay that the statement is
rue, but 1 think this may
compared favoraLly with the
leaders, statements regarding the
debt, which are not in &C.
ordance with the facts Of the case
s the following will show: The
debt of Union County is
"a, $50 90. The floating debt July
st, 1890 was s28, l49 %, there has
'een, since January LIST, 1890, war
ants drawn on the County's Gener-
! fund to the amount Of S11, 1O8.7 8, |
a balance Of Sl7 ,O4O.47 Of
he floating debt unpaid. To this
mount add s7,2S3.S4 allowed on
he County 'sgeneral fund since Jan.
st 80 making the account stand
324,31 which added to the
bounded debt of &24. 5000 makes
'48,474.31, Union County's total
|ebt, only a little difference Of $780,
rs SO, not much OF a crack for the
eader. Of this debt the county
ms something to show for a part Of
t at least. With the exception Of
What was paid for the land or what
8 known as the Poor farm, most all
# the rest Of the expense came from
he county general fund which is
quite an amount but just how much
can not say at this time. OF the
AK for 1889 there is vet uncollected
.bout $4,000 belonging to the coun-
y general fund. II we take the
'um of both items from the total
lebt it would, [ think, reduce the