The age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1897-1902, 1897-08-31
HIS MANY YEARS RECORD
The Files of the Capitol Show Lott to Have
Been in Trouble a Long Time.

Collector Lott has been In trouble for
many years, which dates back to about
1873. Hs has BEEN required to strengthen
mis- bond and other compliances with the
law, which e seemed to be violating.
The records at the Capitol show that
Mr. Lott was sued on his official bond by
the state in October, 1880, r. II. Clarke, OF
Mobils, beirg of counsel fer the state.
That he was again sued By the state in
1884 to recover money due, over $4,000 of
it, Mr.. Clarke being the stae's lawyer,
That he was sued on his bond by The
! county in 1885, r. II. Clarke being coun-
sci for the county, and the suit being
bill in olhancery to compel a discovery
and disclosure of property and accsunt-
ing for back taxes collected and never
paid over
That his accounts were examined by
James w. Lapsley, state examiner, In
1885, and found to be short many thou
sands of dollars. That his accounts were
examined in 1896 by State Examiner
Reeves and shortage found OF nearly
$4,000.
That on March "a one of his bondsmen
asked to he discharged fnfom HIS bond,
alleging as the reason therefore that he
twas in danger of being made liable on
such bord and could have no adequate
remedy against MIR. Lott. That he was
thereupon required to make his bond
good, ard that he has not yet complied
with the law inEhi last complication.
At the time OF the fis< suit r. w. Cobb
was governor, and WINS Brewer, auditor.
At ;he time of the second suit, in 1881,
E. A O'Neal was governor, and j. IN.
Carmichael was al1ditor Gov. O'Neal
ordered an examination of his books In
1885, Gov. Oates ordered an examination
OF his books in 1896. Gov .Johrtstcn seeks
20 require in 1897 compliance with "A
plain statute in lhe matter eff his bond.
In the record book of the proceedings
of the board CT compromise. kept in the
auditors office, appears the following
entry, under date eff March 10. 1881:
application of compromise under an
act approved February -, 1879, from E.
B. Lott, tax collector OF Mobile county,
and his sureties.
ITO the Honorable The Governor At
torney-General and Auditor of the State
of Alabama.
'-The undersigned tax collector for Mo
bile county, in said ate, resp Ctfuly pro-
poses ito compromise and settle the claims
| asserted against him by the state for the
sum eff S7,676.07 in fun CT such claim
against him as such tax collec or foe and
includlng the years 1873, 1874, 1875 1876
and 1877, said sum to be paid on the ac-
ceptace of this PROPOSE ion into the state
treasury. 1T liz proper that I should in
form you klrat Messrs. James H. Daugh-
drill, Jacob Mayer and n. N. Perry sure
ties on my bond for these years, have
been discharged in the bankruptcy cour
Of the United States district court a. Mo
bile, and are not now pecuntarily reSpon-
sabie Tor any amount collec table by pro-
cess of law, and that William T. Cleve-
lands property Is covered by valid ex-
listing molEages duly recorded, largely
exceeding the value Of his property. I'm
fortunately, The sum above proposed Is
all that 1t is possible for me to command
after great effort, as l had the misfortune
to lose all my own property in certain
mercantile operations in aid of a relative
/ also think 1t proper 20 call your at
tention to the fact that the claims assert
ed by the State are chiefly for monies
which l have actually paid out to as5es-
sofs as commissions and fees paid ito 9TH
er officers for services rendered as pre-
Vlous 20 such payments had been usual
I ana customary with tax collectors, and
aiso nor payments made to the county
and school board, and which have been
heretofore recognized and allowed to your
applicant by Auditor Smith for 1873. 1874
and 1875.
(Signed) e. LOTT
Tax Cooled or Mobile County.
On the margin of the page in red ink Is
this astonishing note
Amount due as per tax books SRA
56313. Settled for $7,676.07"
BY order of the board of compromise,
as recorded, accepts ths proposition of
Mr.. Lott, which closes his accounts up to
1873. A settlement for 1873 and 1879 was
compelled by suit.
In Vol. &c. page 147 of the Supreme
Court Reports, will be found reported the
case of the State of Alabama VS.. Lott.
being suit by the state on the bond of
Tax Collector Lott. of Mobile county.
The suit was instituted in the circuit
court on Oct rs, 1880, and the complaint
makes ten assignments of breaches of
official bond, the essence of them being
that Lott had failed to make final settle
ments with the auditor on the 1st of
May, 1879 and 1880. as required by law,
for the taxes of 1878 and 1879, respect
lively
Lott plead that on the last Saturday
of each month. from October, 1878. to
January. 1881. he made report under oath
to the probate judge for amounts collect
ed during such months and paid over to
the state treasurer every dollar of such
taxes Except school and poll taxes), and
on the 14th of February, 1881, he made
final settlements for the whole amounts
of state taxes for 1878.
He made the same monthly reports
from October. 1879, to April, 1881, as to
the taxes of 1879, and en- the 9th of May,
1881, he made final settlement for 1879.
1t was shown by the evidence that no
interest was ever paid and there was
nothing to show why he failed to collect
on time.
Thu lower court decided against the
state appealed. The supreme court re-
vers4d and remanded the decision of the
circuit court.
Brickell, c. J.. delivered the opinion.
In 1884 the state again brought suit
against Lott for money which he had
collected and refused to pay over for
tbs year 1883. r. H. Clarke was again
as the political prosecutor on this occa-
sion and his fee was to be 10 per cent.
of all sums recovered. He was success
full in recovering from Mr.. Lott or his
sur=ties the amount of $16.565.10. and the
records in the auditors office show that
Mr.. Clarke was paid every cent of his fees
amounting to $1,656.51.
On Nov 20, 1885. Mr.. Lapsiey filed his
first report on Mr.. Lofts office. Here is
an extract:
For many years there have never been
any settlements made by the collector of
Mobile with ths auditor at the time re-
uuired by law, and sometimes large bal
ances have been carried over beyond
the close of the fiscal ysar Last year, on
the list of October. Mr. Lott owed the
state over $4,000, the collection of which
the auditor very properly enforced by a
resort to legal proceedings. but at cost