St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-28
SHERIFF IN A FIX.
A Technical Question Which
May Cost Him Several
Thousand.
>:71
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK
Secured a Rebate Of Fifty Per
Cent on It's Personal
Property.
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK
STATE AUDITOR OBJECTED
And a Very Complicated State
OF Affairs Confrents the
Sheriff.

A queer ENHANCEMENT has arisen in
the county affairs, which may cost
Sheriff Holmberg $4,000 before it is
Strengthened out According to law,
May 1, 1894, all of the banks of the city
were required to give under oath the
amount of personal property COM
posing the capital stock of the bank
in their possession. This is for pur-
poses of taxation under the personal
property taxation acts, and the state
ments so received are made the basis
of the tax levy for the year, excepting
the levy on real estate, which comes
under the real estate taxation laws.
May 1st of last year every bank IN
the city fulfilled this requirement, and
as a result the following assessments
were made against each: Bank or
Minneapolis, 81, 1855; City bank, 3d.
| 01S90; Flour City National bank, Si0,-
547.O9; First National bank $12,225.76;
Germania, $717.51; Hennepin County
| Savings bank, $611.13; Irish American,
S99O.15; Metropolitan, $2,12467; Nicollet
! National bank, S7,922.42; Peoples bank,
| S41048; Union National, $780, IA;
| Columbian National, S2,574.98; Bank of
! Commerce, SO, 52O45; Northwestern
National, s16.301. so; Security, s9,01S.s7;
| Swedish American National, S, 435.90;
| Washington bank, 1,3S9.63.
With the exception of the First
National bank each paid their personal
| taxes for the year before April of
1885, in accordance with the state law.
In January, the First National bank
| sent a representative before the coun-
| ty commissioners and asked for a
| II bate claiming that owing to the
financial distress of the year and a
half, their stock was hardly worth
| as much as had been stated A re-
bate of SO per cent was granted to
| the bank and the assessment was cut
in two.
When the matter was placed before
the state auditor for his approval he
would not agree to the rebate, and
insisted that the whole amount must
be paid, claiming that the value of
stock assessed was made under oath,
and unless it was proved otherwise
! the state nor the county commission
erS had no right to suppose that there
| had been any change whatever in its
! value. The matter was then referred
F.; back to County Treasurer. Hastings,
who, in accordance with the law, sent
| the claim up to the clerk of the dis
trict court, asking him to draw a war
rant for the amount and put it in the
hands of the sheriff for collection.
! The law requires that this shall be
| done on the first of April, and County
! Treasurer Hastings conformed with
the law in the respect that he thought
waa all right. 1t is customary for the
+! banks to pay this personal property
fr.xy $50 @f i. -aA
turning to the clerk he made the as
i sessment payable by the bank as a
| corporation, when it should have been
payable by the Individual stockhold-
ers of the bank. of whom there are
about 300. to be in strict accord with
the law When this warrant was
served the bank pointed out the error
and refused to pay it. Accordingly,
Sheriff Holmberg waited upon Clerk
Dickey and asked for Individual war
rants against the stockholders of the
concern. Clerk Dickey refused to is
sue them, claiming that the law was
specific in that it required that they
should be issued April 1. and no other
date was named. On this technicality
the whole assessment is likely to be
tied up. Sheriff Holmberg cannot col
lect the tax unlec1S he has the proper
warrant from the court, and it is
claimed that Clerk Dickey refuses to
give 1t to him. In another respect he
is between the devil and the deep sea,
for the law holds him liable for the
amount. Chapter 1911, General Laws
of 1894, Compiled Statutes, makes this
assertion
s1,5n PENALTY FOR NEGLECT OF
SHERIFF.
If the sheriff of any county shall re-
fuse or neglect to collect any tax
assessed upon personal property, where
the same is collectible, or to file the
| delinquent list and affidavit as herein
, provided, he shall be held liable for
the whole amount of such taxes I'M
collected and the same shall be de-
Quoted from any bill or bills presented
to and allowed by the board of coun-
ty commissioners and applied to the
several funds for which they are
| levied"
While it might be rather difficult to
prove that the neglect rested with
the sheriff there is no law so far as is
known that makes it obligatory upon
the clerk to issue the necessary war
rants after April l. The whole matter is
likely to bring on any amount of
! illlSsdtlOll DSlOIt d SGll1Gn6nl
reached. The Individual stockholders
of the First National bank will prob
ably refuse to pay the taxes assessed
on the ground that a rebate was or
dered by the board of county commits
sioners and the question will be raised
whether or not the state auditor has
the right to counterfeit any steps
taken by the commissioners When
this point is settled, the only way in
which to require the clerk to issue a
warrant for the amount is to secure a
writ of mandamus compelling him to
do SO, and this will be argued.
Whether or not it will be sustained is
also questionable. Under the law a
property holder will, of necessity, ask
for such a writ, and this will probably
be the first step taken in the matter.
The portion Of the law under which
Clerk Dickey takes his stand is as
follows: Chapter 1867 of the Compiled
Statutes of Minnesota for the year
1894. ION the first day of April in each
and every year the county treasurer
shall make a list of all such delinquent
personal property taxes which he shall
certify to the clerk of the district
court of his county, and the said CLERK
shall Immediately issue his warrants
to the sheriff Of the county, directing
him to proceed to collect the same
1t is understood that the word i'm
mediately'' before the order to issue
warrants makes it imperative that it
be issued April 1, the same day as that
on which the treasurer certifies to the
delinquency. The questions involved
are causing no end of discussion
among the attorneys who ara con-
versant with the facts. While Sheriff
Holmberg is liable it is only a remote
contingency that he will be called upon
to shell out the s12.226.7O, and in case
he was asked to do SO there would in
all probability be another suit es-
tablishing his liability under the law
| as quoted above.