Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1892-01-08
THAT TAX DECISION,

THAT TAX DECISION.
Perhaps lever in the history of Dako-
ia has a decision been rendered by a
court that has as much financial inter
est to the citizens of a commonwealth
as has the decision reported in the TR1B-
uNE's telegraphic columns yesterday in
the case of Wallace vs. Stutsman coun-
ty. 1t is safe to say that a quarter of
a million dollars rested upon the words
that should fall in judicial utterance
from the robed Justices Of the supreme
court of the United States. The Suits
man county tax case has been before the
courts for several years and involved
the question as to whether a purchaser
of a tax certificate from a county, at the
t%reasurer's annual sale, should be reim-
bursed by the county in case it should
turn out that his certificate was void;
whether he should receive from the
county the money he put in for the in
valid certificate and the additional usuri-
Gus interest allowed in this class of
cases by the laws of the commonwealth.
The case first came before the old terri
torial supreme court and that tribunal
decided that if a person purchased a
certificate from the county, the county
was liable to the purchaser for the face
of the document and 80 per cent. inter-
est annually thereon. From this order
Stutsman county appealed. Since state
hood the state supreme court in the
case of Tyler VS.. Cass county
has had the precise question
before it and in an elaborate and en-
haustive opinion by Justice Bartholo-
NEW took the opposite position-that
the rule of caveat emptor applied-that
the legal maxim that "he who purchased
must beware'-was in full force in tax
sale proceedings and the state court &C.
cordingly ruled that the purchaser of a
certificate that was afterwards declared
invalid lost his money invested. On the
correctness of this decision many a law
yer and the bar of the state have differed.
But a decision has been rendered by the
last court known in the jurisprudence Of
the United States, and they have declar-
ed that the views taken i'll the opinion
by Justice Bartholomew are the right
ones; that where a person invests his
money in an enterprise that under guise
of law gives a rate of interest unknown
to any legitimate business, and it is
afterwards declared wroDgfully invested,
he loses it; that the man who puts his
money in a process that is called by the
law right, but which is no more morally
so than the man who places his money
on the rolette wheel and hopes to gain
thirty.tive for one and who loses it, has
no more reason to complain. In
other words, that the "tax title shark"
50 called, has no sympathy from
the public. and as he sows SO must he
reap. The decision means that our state
supreme court has been upheld in a
question over which the best legal talent
of the United States has been counsel
ing; that the counties Of the state have
saved a large amount and that Burleigh
county in particular is $25,000 ahead by
the decision.
For the losing side the TRIBUNE has
no sympathy. They put their money in
as any other gambler would-with hopes
of vast reward. They have Jared as
many a gambler has in the ~past-risked
and received nothing. If ye will take
chances on receiving usury, You must
also take chances on getting nothing.
They have the latter. To our friend
Banker Steckel, he of Iowa, who con-
dems our state court as being prone to
render decisions in favor of the farmer
and for political effects, this decision
is respectfully consigned; to our friend
Major Shaw, of the Fargo Argus, who is
SO afraid the state court will not square
themselves and who is opposed to
technicalities, this decision is respect
fully referred. The decision was
rendered on what the judges believed to
be the law; they so declared it; the SUI
preme court of the United States has up.
held them; our judges know what is the
law and we are glad of 1t. Let him be
hurt who will.
NJ M~--ra -.1.-- H. I'LL