Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-03-10
LEVY COURT.
Copies of tho Third District Assessment
Lists Hung Up Tor Public Inspection.

The total of additions of names at
Tuesdays session of Levy Court was
81. Business went along quietly.
Following is an illustration of what
occasionally happens in Levy Court
An applicant named Jacob B. Sitter
appeared Tuesday. His voucher,
William II. Pierscn. said the man was
to be put on the Tenth ward list. On
examination the name was found on the
Third ward list and close to it also his
son "Charles Sliffer's" name.
The name, however, was spelt with
one az"
II don't consider" said voucher Pier
son, shat that is Sliffer's name. lie
| spells his name with two "fs" and this
has only one."
Mr.. Jolls made the motion to the effect
that the name be transferred from the
| Third TO the Tenth ward and that at the
same time the an be inserted The
motion was passed.
In regard to this instance it will be re-
membered that the Republican members
of Levy Court for the past week have
been in considerable tromor over chang
ing or dropping or correcting name. 1t
is an illustration of where the majority
| of Levy Court by motion has changed
its former position in such cases.
In regard to the much-tallsed-o of
peculiar business methods" of the
county treasurer and tax receiver, any
one acquainted in any degree with the
completely of the accounts even as they
are necessarily so according TO the
statute and the system OF the Levy
Court as it has always existed would
not be surprised ut occasional errors
among the many thousands of different
items. In the first place the books are
received from the Levy Court and il
there be errors Of duplication, that is
not the collectors fault. He has to de-
mand payment for each item in his
| duplicate.
Again, the fault of apparent additional
payment is just as often caused by the
citizen himself. lie comes to the re-
ceiver to pay his tax. Suppose it is
Mr.. A, who has three houses in the
Third ward, one of which he has re-
Gently improved. The tax is $40 on
the value ($1200) OF the three houses. 1t
was about the same last year The
receiver looked up his name, found the
amount S5.40 against it, and gives Mr..
A, on payment, a receipt, less the per
cent rebate.
But Mr.. A this year has been putting
an improvement on one OF his buildings.
With easy tax-paying virtue he has not
mentioned what the assessor, unknown
to him has discovered, and returned as
an improvement with $3.50 additional
against him. But this is not mentioned
to the tax receiver by A. This tax re-
ceiver did not know of that little item in
| apothnr t1art of tho bnolr IL wac tho
duty of Mr.. A, who knew he owed
some certain extra amounts to the city
to honestly tell the receiver so at the
time, when it would have been hunted
up, found at the end of the book, and
then added to Mr. AS account. But
Mr.. A does no such thing. He simply
sneaks off, thinking he has gained SO
much money and escaped taxation.
| But by and by, the unpaid taxes are
handed over to the delinquent collectors.
All these little amounts and sums due
on improvements are listed and all in
good time, Mr.. A gets his little bill
for the $1.50 improvement. He is sur
prised, then mad. Next he writes
letter TO the papers, complaining that he
went to pay his taxes in time, in order
to get the rebate, and now he is ILL
l
him that he owed this additional sum
which is gone into the delinquent tax
collectors hands. He knew perfectly
well that he owed that money to the
city, but was confident that the assessor
Ehad missed it because the receiver had
not included il in his bill. His chagrin
is really due to the fact that he has been
discovered trying to dodge the payment
| nf 10 In, Ia !,
around tattllng about the rascality of
County Treasurer Dickey and his
peculiar business methods"
If there is anything thoroughly appre-
ciated and also conceded at the present
stage of this property tax question it is
the fact of the extreme difficulty of
carrying out an exact method of book
keeping of the county tax levy.
What largely causes the trouble is the
improvements and transfers. These are
made so often and at such contrasted
dates that infinite confusion follows.
The assessor easily falls into the clerical
error OF duplicating properties and the
revising committee fails TO correct The
books are passed to the county collector
in this condition and on his head falls
all the condemnation of the taxpayer.
Records of new transfers and improve
ments are incorrectly made in the Levy
Court because either the buyer or seller
has given inexact or incorrect informa-
ton. New purchasers have been taxed
at the same time with the old, often
strange as it may seem, because there
has been no way open for the assessor
to gain information. In addition to these
laxities sellers of property have gone on
for two or three years paying the taxes
on property which they have parted
with. This accounts for the frequent
motions passed at court in regard to re-
bate on overpaid taxes All this calls for
constant changes, erasures and correc-
tons in the court record.
In the strange condition that the prop
erty tax levy duplicate comes to the
county collector with its numerous adj
ditional lists Of items Of transfers, i'm
provemcnts, new property items, &C., it
is wonder that the whole tax depart
ment is not in a muddle instead of only
a few isolated mistakes found here and
there.
Every member of the Levy Court, Re-
publicans and Democrats alike, and es-
pecially Chairman John w. Jolls of the
the finance committee, realizes the diff
culties of the fiscal collections.
County Collector Dickey's suggestion,
and one which IL is understood Mr..
Jolls entirely agrees, is for totally new
system of bookkeeping. The main
point of Mr.. Dlckoy's idea is comprised
| in what he denominates "Return
Book" This is nothing more nor less
than an individual ledger account for
every property holder in the county.