Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-06-04

lnlS DV ltS uate MAY I6til, IcNJ WHICH WIS
the last day of registration of that year.
It is matter Of common knowledge
that the office of Tax Collector Dougherty
WAS over-crowded on that day In fact
according TO the report of the petitioners
to the superior court the office interior
was tumultuous. Dougherty did his best
tpserve the citizens. The lateness of the
date of receipt of the duplicates was to
some extent the cause of the crush. Mr..
Billuny was not marked paid and was re
turned as an error. Our point is that he
was improperly returned, having paid his
taX-this through an omission of j. D..
Dougherty not marking him off as paid.
Then, in 1890 he appears before the
same collector to pay his tax; the same
one to whom he made his payment Of 80.
II is true Dougherty was then between two
fires.
Ii through his negligence Billany was
returned AS an error he would be liable to
suit, and on the other hand Billany
would be illegally deprived Of his right to
vote. ON my part, ! cannot see any great
fault in Doligherty under the circum-
stances. In regard To what his course was
that is the tax collectors choice.
liillany paid his tax for 50 and got his
receipt, he paid in 40 and got his receipt,
You say he was not on the duplicate for
80, But he did all he was able to do to
obtain a receipt for 90
Dougherty may have made n mistake OF
judgment in granting a receipt but there is
not nm iotn OF evidence to show that Bill
any has been guilty of fraudulency.
city Solicitor Lyman then replied in
effect as follows! ~ think this Is the first
time, as far as my official career affords
me memory of that the tax offices of this
city have been charged with conducting
business in too speedy Il manner, The
recollection of most of us is that the regtl-
f.nf al ittt flt.
that the collectors took too much time in
making out tax receipts. But Mr.. Dough-
erty is my witness and | am bound by
what he says. am satisfied to accept the
statement that liillany had his tax receipt
on May 1850 But notwithstanding that,
here ii is a fact that he was returned as
error and delinquent for 50 taxes And
the further fact must be considered that on
the duplicates of 80 Harry II. l5illauys
name did not appear. II has not been
shown that the collector has any authority
to correct his own mistakes. He certainly
returned Billany as an error. | question
! don't know any right Dongherty had to
issue a receipt without the name appearing
ON the duplicate.
Now il this manner of transactng busi
ness is permitted by tax collector every
man on the delinquent list of 80 can vote
ON receipt of 1880. If Dougherty saw fit
he might then grant receipts to all who
appear on the error list of previous years.
! must emphatically. say that | do not
think this thing should be allowed.
Now, as to fraudulent registering. If
that receipt is not valid one, it certainly
is a fraudulent one, And if the tax re-
ceipt is not good, the registration stamp
upon it is not good. do contend that all
we are here for is to prove that that is not
valid tax receipt and should not have
been registered on May 10Th last.
In deciding the case Judge Ball said
I'VE have in testimony the tax receipt for
May 18th, 1850. Dougherty states on oath
that the signature is his. II is also in tes-
timony that lSillany was returned a delin,
quent that year through the error Of the
tax collector Billany having paid his
tax for 50 had no reason to consult the
| error list. All he needed was to go to the
tax collector for his tax receipt.
On December 9Th, 1880, John j
| Dougherty issued another receipt to
| Billany for 1880 for this year. Billany
was not properly assessed. not being on
| the duplicate. But there is no testimony
in the case that he was told he was not OH
| the assessment list.
There can be no doubt that il is fraud
ulcnt receipt for 1870. To say that il
| would bring Mr.. l3illany underthat charge
would be quite another matter. But Bill
| lany now having the knowledge of its
| condition Of fraudulency there would be a
different phase to his act, did he attempt
| to vote with the receipt. ! cannot dc
otherwise than dismiss the case.
EaEsquire Smith, Thursday gave a hearing
To Manuel liichenberger on the charge Of
registering illegally in the Third district OF
| the Third ward. Lewis lIoues testified
| that Richcnherger lived in New Castle
hundred, and IL, VI. Mullin, an officer OF
registration in the district alluded to, testi-
| fled that the accused applied there and was
| duly registered. Richcnberger was held in
$500 bail for appearance at the general
sessions court, Thomas McIIugh becoming
! his surety. James Maloney was also given
u hearing on the charge Of registering lille.
gally in the Sixth district OF the Eighth
ward. The evidence offered was that his
| tax receipt signed John j. Dougherty,' "
was not genuine, although no proof was
| produced To support the assertion. The
| receipt was for 1859 taxes, dated January
18th. .lsDand John Spring testified that Ma
! loney had lived here only about Ii months
and therefore could not have been legally
assessed for 1889. The accused was held III
$500 bail for court, George w. Griffith be
coming his surety.
| lii an interview with reporter of thu
| ,Wolning NeWs ION Thursday Postmaster
Daniel + Stewart charges Joseph l.. Car
! pcnter, .lr., with having, while he was col
lcctnr of county taxes, issued tax receipts
4 to Republicans, in blank form, but duly
| signed. Postmaster Stewart IS thus quoteC
! by the Nctrs.
had just come out of the city hall and me
Mr. Carpenter. | charged him with having is
/ sued tax receipts 10 Republicans in blanh
when he was tax collector with Lewis MuCll
| Of the lh"rn district Of Wilmington. MIR
/ Carpenter ut first denied tho accusation.
| then tolh him thnt he hnd mace nm admission
! 20 that effect NJ the ourt house in New astl,
1 In The presence of harles b. Lore, Henry T.
i Pirkrls aud nrs II. Mr.. CARPENTER thel
| made tho admission TO me that he had ISSUED
! the titS receipts to Republicans in blank whel
| he was tax collector.
next accused MIR. Carpenter Of selling Ia,
! rcrepts 10 Republicans in bulk, which hi
| dill n attempt TO deny, knowing that hue
| iu cognizance Of the fact. THIS ended oul
\ conversation
POSITIVE DENIAL.
Thursday morning THE GAZETTE repre-
| sentative met Mr.. Carpenter and asked hin
about the above statement
81 deny the assertion said Mr.. Car
| pcnter, emphatically, "and ! challenge any
man. Democrat or Republican. to PROV,
that ever issued tax receipt in blank fol
never did such q thing and never ad
mitted that | did, to stewart or anybody
else y
As to the statement TINT he had issued
tax receipts in bulk, Mir. Carpenter sale
| that he did, on one occasion, allow VIII
liam NJ. Pyle, who was then postmaster
to pay the taxes Of number of men ri
one time, for whom he gave him the re
ceipts. The taxes thus paid amounted Il
about slOO. "fle receipts. however, :
said Mr. Carpenter, "wera properly made
they were intended were written on them
| Mr. PYLE asked me If he potlId mn ,,uI