The Wichita daily eagle., 1897-06-17

| by the county commissioners they claim
| a set-off as against amount found due
| the city Of about SIG, 600. The Dorsey and
Smith report, I believe, has this amount
nearer $50, ,0G0, but I have this TO say
about il: These items came from the old
tax rolls Of 1892 and prior years and after
collecting a large profit in the matter OF
penalties and interest on these years
sales. they now attempt TO charge back
all Of the losses or unredemmed taxes
without allowing the city any credit what
ever for ary part Of the profits.
The penalties for the five years prior
10 1892, as shown by the county .reasur-
ers ledgers amounted TO over SS5,000.
The rebates allowed during the same five
years were but little over $4,000. leaving
a balance Of profits on penalties alone of
over s65, 900, or over $4,000 per year for
the five years. Part of this was not col
lected, but at least s45, 900 of it was. I
think. Then there is the item of interest
at "a per cent on delinquent taxes for the
same years. which / really think would
amount 10 fully as much more and would
make nearly $4,000 profit as the city has
been in years past paying more thar
half Of the taxes. 1t ,ooks as though the
city should have a part Of these large
profits il she is called upon to stand the
losses. The city is, / think, ready to
take its losses provided it has its share
of profits. Formerly this tax sale prop
erty was a profit to the county when
people paid their taxes the penalty of Is
per cent and the interest of "a per cent
per year gave the county a good profit
50 they took all delinquent taxes settled
with the various funds and kept every
thing. When the legislature cut down
the penalty to 10 per cent and the inter-
est 10 10 per cent and parties quit pay
irg taxes 1t was no longer profitable, so
the different funds were charged back
with their various proportions and more,
as the county fund collected from these
various funds nearly all of their annua.
penalties and advertising IT cash. And
not only that. but also interest and pen
alties on all of the city special funds such
as paving, sewer ana sidewalk.
l am frank 10 say TO you that I carnot
ousy on the part Of the county officers
for anything connected with the city. The
city is a part OF the county. More than
half of the votes and more thar half OF
al the salaries Of the county officers
have come from the city. and it is GER
,ainly entitled 10 a fair deal. One OF the
county commissioners gets his entire vote
and his constituency is entirely within
the limits of The city.
l would like TO see our business done
on business principles, and the city being
interested 20 nearly five times as much
as the County, has right 70 look after
her matters. 1 had hoped these mat
tiers OF difference could have'been settled
between the city and county in a quiet.
equitable way. al parties getting to-
geiher and settling the matter justly. Ny
was started not in ary
spirit OF retaliation or spite. L simply
suggested to the mayor that was unen-
p,oyed and that he had better let me look
Up the matter Of penalties and interes,
that 1 thought We're due the cisy and for
which the city was receiving 10 credit.
carrying over S150.0oo OF delin-
quent tax. l Gid not expect - look for
anything else when I went 10 work, but
1 soon found some other matters OF larg-
er Importance % the city. and 1 was in
then TO look them up with the
present unpleasant results, The report
Of NessrS Dorsey and Smith as far as
1t gees proves NY figures 70 be ao2ToXi-
macely correct as TO credits still due the
city. As q taxpayer 1 am Interested in
seeing that this city gets all that ii is ea-
ii;ied 10. 1 stand by my claims and be-
lieve they are much nearer correct taaa
me oue held by the County"