Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1890-05-08

L pSiosAoA "-aSA N - Aeaip"pt eSWAts
state funds ............... Sss sl
County fund.......-.................. 500 04
Poor ".....-......... ''''''.... 2 20
Bridge "...... fI3 "
Building fund ....................... 8I2 95
General ditch fnnd . ...................... 73 Is
Soldiers relief fund. .....--.----..".,...- 10 u
Debt fund.-. III 90
Napoleon pike fund...... % 6S
township funds 2oi IS
School ............... ,.......... 1871 81
Corporation :. ...... .......... SSs Is
Total. .s4O8s O8
TOWNSHIP DITCH ASSESSMENTS, ETC.
| hnd that In many cases gross injustice has been
done to owners Of real estate upon which assesB-
ments have been placed for the location and con-
struction OF township bitches. Under and by au-
thority Of Sec. 4547 r. g. the township trustees cor
y amounts due 10 certain persons for the cOnstruo
ton Of township bitches. The Audttprhas added %
much 10 per cent thereto and plahed the same up
on the tax duplicate against the lands aeseesed for
the payment OF said construction The law does not
warrant the Auditor In putting anymore upon the
tax duplicates than the amount certified by the rus-
tess As an example showing how this has been
practiced, adduce the following to.wit: On Nov.
oath, 1888, certificate In favor OF Newton Brown,
for township ditch work, reached the auditors Of
flee from the truttees Of Washington township, for
Sll24 TO be assessed against the lands Of Vergina
G. Carroll, in Sec. &c. The Auditor instead Of placing
the said amount certified upon the tax duplicate,
added ASS thereto, or per cent additional, and
/ assessed Balu Ihnub SzkI.34 lnbtchu OF fxlz.eos
Dec. lath, 1888, a certificate Of like nature from
trustees Of Richheld township In favor Of Isaac Col
lier, reached the Auditors once. The original
amount was $l0560 TO be assessed against the lands
| Of George W. Askins, In section 70. The amonnt
assessed was $i16l6, or 10 per cent more than ar-
thoriEed by law. ~ Do u.
Another-A certificate in favor Of N. H Ward for
construction Of township ditch in Bartlow Twp for
S8l460 to be assessed against the lands described
as follows, viz: "a.
The south east quarter Of SEQ. No, "a, Of said
township. The Auditor In placing the assessment
upon the tax duplicate, put on the amount OF
sSss 90, instead Of ssl460. the amount he wus au-
thorized to place thereon. This assessment was
first placed upon the duplicate Of 1885. The owner
Auditor in transferring this township ditch assess
ment to the tax duplicate Of lb66. has added o
penalty Of 10 per cent, increasing the amonnt te
$SS7.i1 Again the matter run delinquent, and and
was transferred to the tax duplicate Of 1887. This
time per cent. penalty was added, and on the tax
duplicate OF 1887. this same &qsssment becomes
Stl0.34. The owner let the tax9R and assessments
on his said lands run delinquent until in Dec. 1889.
In transferring the above assesa ents nom the tax
duplicates of 1887 to that Of 1888 aud Of 1889 no fur
| ther penalty was added. But In Dec. 1889, above
Sey. wa. Ras Into S treasury e.
this Mr.. N. H. Wsrd, who had done the ditchtng.
presented his certificate or warrant for his pay All
he could get was the original amount OF %Sl 16O.
Ia readily seen that there 10 the sum OF $50 IA
left in the treasury of this assessment and penalties
4 which sum the owner Of the land has paid In, and
| Mr.. Ward, the man who did the work, cannot get
cent Of Il nor even interest on the amount originally
4 due him might mention many other instances OF
the sort, besides many instances closely akin
thereto In the county ditch assessments - well 90
assessments for township bitches, in which either
the tex payer or the holder Of the ditch warrant s
hagrantly wronged $3.50 @a.F
/ pzLrNoUExr TAX REcDRp FoRl 1885.
fnd by looking over the record Of delinquent
taxes Of 1885, returned in August 1885, BY the treas
urer Of Henry county, Ohio, that the County Andi'
tor received taxes of various parties after settle
ment and that he other Cgnvcrted the lawful pen
atty upon said taxes to his own use, or to the use
Of the party paying the taxes, az no penalty is ac
eountsd for In the cases In which he received taxet
after see returns of delinquent taxea fol
said year) In one case however, the penalty ($5 "a
was carried onto the tax duplicate OF 1888 and added
in the totals, but afterwArd taken out TO do tnii
i was necessary 70 scratcn OF erase nsnTes ON o "a.
A done. the book bearing unmisakable marks OF the
4 knife, and not only that but as thus changed thu
n pageof the tax duplicate upon which this erasinE
4 was done does not prove. tsee tax duplicate vol
No. j, OF 1885, page S7.) tGss H.
j also and that the taxes and assessments charg
4 ed on lot No. 81, south part north end 26 feet, In
the village Of Napoleon, said lot being owned 1aas 1S
II as follows to-wit: Delinquency OF 1884, 1851 20
q Halifax due Dec 2Oth 1885, $3.50 n which includes
the delinquency Of the year 1884. Total tax Of 1885
s6Oi.M That the sum of $4,000 was receipted fol
In the Dec. payment of taxes This left the sum Of
$780,. II unpaid at time Of Feb. settlement of 1886
To this sum was added penalty Of $5.2i, 15 per ct
on $S4ss, the unpaid Dec. taxes, making total
y year. The tax duplicate does not show that an!
: part Of this $s0s.sB was paid.
But upon following the matter to the delinquent
duplicate (see page 15) this $S063S becomes only
Sl66sS By footing the delinquencies on said page
I find the exact total to be just $2l0 90 short Of
the total amount Of delinquency for which the Audi
tor gives the Treasurer credit. Upon close exam
instion fnd that the treasurer returned delin
auent taxes the above SS08.88, and received cred
therefore in August settlement as 10 plainly shown
by the footings on pages 10, SS, and 1856 of delin
auent duplicate, and BY the total amount on tht
ninth line on the settlement sheet Of August 1886
Mr. Bockelman says that he paid $4,000 Of this tai
to the county treasurer in August 1885. find Mr.
Bockalma g statement corroborated bytreasurer't
AUDITORS Office, said $2000e being receipted for or
the Th day Of August, 1886, or eight days prior tt
the oath made by said County Treasurer to the sale
return of delinquent taxes. BY close inspection o.
the said return OF said taxes 1t s eaay seen that the
figure "s' has been erased and the figure ~ put In
is place, thus changing the S8o63S TO- $l06 38 ant
leaving the said amount OF S20OoO totally unaccoun
ted for. See page Is Of delinquent tax record d
said year. and must have been in the hands of the
County Treasurer. and has never been accounted
for by him as shown by the records. 'f9 ..
AupIroE's FEES AND ALLOWANCES.
And in the examination Of the records, book
. and vouchers in the Auditors office, that many
the allowances and fees allowed said official hav,
been largely in excess Of that specified BY the statu
and many bills have been allowed him for whicl
j, there is no law
II and set OF books which have been kept up To-
many years. and which are Of no use whichever
The books are styled Especial tax Duplicates
They are never used by either the Auditor Treas
urer nor by anyone else. For they contain nothing
: which Is not more readily fonnd on other records
which other records meet the full requirements O
the statutes.
Ido not wish to be understood as saying that th,
law does not require special duplicate Of specia
taxes and record of the same TO be made by sait
!. official. The law does so require. But the re
, uurements OF the law are, and have been met AMI
fully satisfied by the system Of tax duplicate worl
In this county without said special tax duplicate
above referred to. Theregular tax duplicates ant
8 special tax duplicates are bound together in tn
same book and this obviates the necessity Of writ
, ing out the name of the owner and description O
9 the property assessed, and merely makes 1t neces
Q sary to designate the improvement for which tn
Q assessment is made, and place the amount Of tn
assessment in the proper column. #B gsa
also find complete record Of special assess
ments for the making Of which the Audior receive
nav as per sec. 4606 R. s. Thusit Ia seen that thos
books styled especial tax duplicates are entirel
v unnecessary. find that there has been paid b
the Auditor. thesum of 81 062.00, for making thes
books since 1881 In OF his bills he has referre
; to sec 1875 r. g, for authority for making hi
charges for said work. This section refers only b
u fees allowed the Auditor for such services unde
+ theimproyed road law, and In the time mentione,
], above there would be $435.68 due him for specia
tax work under this section, aud that amount only
!. Therefore the sum Of 81, ,62652, has been raid t
said official In excess OF law, provided those book