Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1891-02-06
The TAX-LEVY VOID.
The Fickle Action of the Late Board Of
Supervisors Puts Them in Trap.


Perhaps never in the history of coun-
ty boards of supervisors has there been
a board whose actions have proven
more culpable and even dispicable than
those of the late board. A plan of cor
ruption and party heeling was decided
upon before the session began; and it
only failed because of the inability of
the actors. City schemers had pre-
arranged the whole work of the Com
mittee on Equalization, and it was
thoroughly understood beforehand
of just what men that committee should
be composed. Subsequent facts seem
to prove conclusively that they were
men allied to the cities interests. With
the help of the mayors, comptrollers
and city attorneys, the cities were able
to control the actions of the board.
The work was blocked out and then
rushed before the board. Haste, lest
opposition get time to form itself, was
the main end in view. The Committee
on Equalization met with closed doors
and in guarded secrecy doctored the
lists to suit themselves. After this
work had been entirely done, a printed
copy of the equalized roll was present
ed to the board for adoption. In that
shape it was accepted but with a fight
ing minority against it. This is in bold
defiance of law. The statutes require
in terms which can not he mistaken,
Public Acts of 1885, Act No. 1913, Sec.
q, that, i'll substance, the equalization
of each township and ward must be
made public 10y an order or resolution
showing the amount added or deduct
ed therefrom. Nothing could be plain
er the duty of the board in accepting
the report of its Committee on Equal
ization. But they failed entirely to
comply with this law in their haste, as
the records show. The ExPosIToR has
itself taken the trouble to compare
certified report of the action of the
board at this juncture. The commit
tee presented their report. 1t was at
once moved that the report be accept
ed. Two amendments were offered by
different members in the name of JUS
tice and both were defeated 32 to 6.
The previous question was then taken
up and passed by the same vote, 81 to
6, as whole without any specific or
ders or resolutions as provided by law.
This, in the first place, is enough to
nullify the whole procedure asmust APP
pear to any sane man.
Again, let us look further. The re-
port of the action of the board of sup
ervisors as filed in the Office of the
County Clerk shows that it was only
signed by the chairman. Howell's
Statutes, Article Sol, reads in regard to
the duty of the board of supervisors:
every order, resolution and de-
termination of such board of super
visors, made in pursuance of this act,
shall be recorded in the record of such
boards and signed by the. chairman
and clerk of such boards"
The law of the commonwealth de-
clares that the report of the board shall
be signed by the chairman and clerk;
and in the Office of the ExPosIToR is
conclusive proof that only the chair
man signed it. This is priori evil
dence that the whole report is abso-
lutely worthless and not one cent of
tax can be collected by reason of the
action.
In case further reference is needed
the following cases in point have been
searched out and will give an exact
precedent in each case. In the case of
Weston Va. Monroe, decided in the Su-
preme Court on Dec. "a, 1890, it reads
in the First syllabus as follows:
"Under How. st. Mich, Act sol, |
which makes it the duty of the chair
man of the county board to sign every
order, resolution and determination of |
such board, a purchaser at a tax sale |
gets no title where the apportionment
and equalization Of the tax of the coun- |
ty board was not signed by the chair
man."
This case referred to failure of the
chairman to sign the report. As the
law requires that both chairman and
clerk sign it the omission of the clerks