Birmingham state herald., 1897-04-21
THE MOBILE ENT TANGLEMEAT .z4a z. Over the Bond of County Tax
 Collector Lott BRINGS FORTH A. LETTER # 1l From Governor Johnston to Probate Judge
 Price Williams, in Which the Latter .s Is Called To Task. s-s.s-..

Montgomery, April 20.-(Specfal)- )--The governor today gave out the subjoined copy of a letter. he wrote Probate Judge Price Williams on Saturday last in re ply to the ist.er of that official on tue, subject of Tax Collector Lotts bond, and which was published in the morning papers of that date before the original copy ever reached the executive office. The letter of tihe governor explains ttSaif, and shows that is is only one in series of correspondence on the subject or MT Uitt's bond Gt will be remembered that Gov, Oates ordered an official eXamira- ton of the tax coliac. .or's oftic@ by the state examiner, ard this report, made soon after Gov. Johnston's inaugur1Iofh, showed shortage of several thousal-II dollars, which was promptly settled up. The Mobile grand jury in November rS-- ouired MT. LoIt- to give additional sicur- fty to the amount Of S5o,0OO. lnlS aoul- tional bond was given on January 10. Since then one or nf1re of the securities on the collectors bond have applied for a discharge and MT. Lott was required to give new bond under the sta ute, anu it is out of his attempt to comply .Wr1a this requirement. that the cofrespoiea-- ence arose.
 Montgomery. Ala, April 17, 1887 Hon. Price Williams. Probate Judge,- MO
 bile, Ala: s- .
 Dear Sir-I read this morning in the Advertiser letter purportins to be ad- dressed to me, from yolu, which prFstfme is correct, and may yet reach me respectfully suggest that it would be we'll to give oppo.ltuntty for official communi- ca; fcns to reach their destination PsIore giving bhsm to the press.
 U am rather inclined 10 the opinlon that you are correct in saying that you have mo Jurisdiction to set aside the approval of bond and certify vacancy. At the same time the approval of. paper pur- porting to be bor1, that is illegal Tn form substance or penalty, would not be compliance with the law, and a. va canIcy would exist whether certified by the prciba.e judge CT not. take it that the pTobate judge could aid any one to hold an office that had become vacant by operation of law by merely refusing or failing to certify the vacancy.
 Along with the publication of your le.- ter is a statement to the effect that there is an attempt to oust MT. Lott from the office.
 I suppose none can know better than yourself that there Is not the least foun- dation fer such an mtination, if It Is in tended to mean that either the audB1ora or myself has any such purpose or any desire except that the tax collector of Mobile shall give bond sufficient to save the s5aya from any loss and honestly and faithfully perform his duties.
 You will doubtless remember that when the grand jury in November last required tIhe tax collector to give an addtional bond, qEtttce of which WIS filed in your office on the 2d of December, 1s96 you required him 10 appear on the 1Tth of December ard show cause why he should not do SO. According to your official re- port, on the 17th of December MT. Lott appeared and upon his application you allowed him until January 2, 1897, to give such bond. This was clearly in violation of sedJaon POP of the code of Ala bama, which declares that "such bond must be given wifhn ten days after the day spec flied in the requisition." "and failing to do so, he varates his office" and the probate judge must certify ,he vacancy. You were probably not acquainted with the provisions of the s.atute at that time Or you would not have fixed any time within which MT. Lott was to make bond, as the statute itself did that.
 It appears further, from your official report made Jan. Il, 1897. that on the 7th of January, 1897, MT. Lott appeared and applied for ten additional days with in which to give bond. and that you granted this time. It is hardly neces- sary to say that you had no jurisdiction to make any such order, and that the office had been vacated from and after about the 17th of December, that is ten days after the notice of the requisition, and that since then MT. Lott has been only the de facto tax collector of Mobile county. The additional bond was given Jan. 15. These facts were all we'll known to me and I knew that the vacancy le- gally existed for more than two weeks. I referred the question to the attorney general to have his opinion as to whether the state or county was likely to suffer any loss or the sureties be affected by reason of MT. Lott being permitted to continue to exercise the duties of tax collector under the circumstances, and I have his opinion on file given me in January that the state could suffer no harm in the premises and the sureties all