The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-09
A sPRINKLiNG TAX CASE.
A Sample of the Working of the Pres
ent Assessment Law.

People are more prompt this year about
paying their sprinkling and sweeping as
sessments, which has kept the clerks of the
county treasurer's Office very busy for the
past few days. Many property owners
profited by their experiences of last year
and resolved not to be caught in the same
trap again. Then the present Board of
Works required contractors to notify prop
erty owners when assessments are due.
The present system seems unsatsfac-
tory to everybody, except it be the lawyers,
who have reaped a harvest of fees in maxi
ing collections A number of firms have ex-
listed for six months past upon fees col
lected from delinquents of last year. When
a property owner fails to pay his sweeping
or Sprinkllng assessment time he is at
the mercy Oh the contractor and his agents.
On the books at the treasurer's office are
scores of accounts. after which are writ
ten, Don't Collect, with the name of the
collecting firm following. This means the
contractor has put the bill in the hands of
attorney who will make the correction.
1t is impossible for the property owner to
pay the assessment at the treasurers Of
nee after become delinquent. Clerks
at the treasurers Office say it is a matter
between the property owner and the con-
tractor, and they have no authority to re-
ceive the money after it has become de-
Hnquent If the contractor prohibits it.
Many complaints have been made at the
treasurer's office of the size of fees charged
by the contractors attorneys for the col
lection of last years assessments. 1t seems
that delinquent property owners have been
charged all the way from s. to $40 for the
collections of small assessments amounting
to but a few dollars. Frequently the per-
sons SO charged are delinquent through no
fault of their own. They are ignorant of
owing an assessment, until notified by the
attorney that they are delinquent and
threatened with a suit if they refuse to
pay the assessment with the fees attached.
The property owner realizes that he owes
the assessment and that If the case should
be brought to trial, he would be made to
pay the amount with the cost of itiga lion
added.
The case of ]. w. Fort, member of the
firm of Fort, Johnson & Co., stock dealers,
is recalled, to illustrate the workings of
the present system. Mr.. Fort owns lot on
Talbot avenue. He was not aware that
any sprinklng had been done on the street
until presented with a bill by Richcreek &
Barker, attorneys. Mr.. Fort had not been
notified of the assessment by either the
had asked for all bills against him when
he paid his taxes, but the sprinkling as
Sessment had not been given him in the
lot. 1t never is, unless specially asked for:
The assessment against Mr.. Fort amounted
to something like 81. As. Attorney Rich
creek put in a bill for $3.50, for fees. Rath-
err than go to court over the matter, with
the prospect of having to pay the court
costs, as we'll as the fees of an attorney,
Mr. Fort paid the amount, but he is now
doing everything he can to have the Leg
slature amend the charter so that sprlnk-
ling and sweeping shall be paid for out OF
a general fund and thus do away with the
present system.