The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1900-06-01
TO STAND PAT.
State Auditor Dunn's Advise to
County Auditors.
He Holds That the Surplus Above the
Judgments In Forfeit Sales is Not
10 be Refunded.

State Auditor Dunn differs with At
torney General Douglas in regard to
the disposition of the surplus bid at the
forfeit tax sale above the amount of the
judgments.
Mr.. Dunn was asked by the st. Paul
Pioneer Press to furnish statement
dealing with the tax sale as whole and
and its aspect viewed from taxpayers
standpoint and he complied with the re-
quest in the following terms:
!, Regarding the forfeited tax sale,
which is about completed in the several
countiesof the state, 1 may say that in
this objective have attempted to place a
plain, common-sense Interpretation up
on the provisions of the forfeited tax
law, and have endeavored to construe
the law in the interests of the taxpayers
of the state. We have held that where
tract of land was sold for more than
the taxes the surplus should be credited
to the county revenue fund, and in no
event should the surplus be paid to the
original owner. To have held other
wise would have resulted in defeating
the object of'the sale-the enforcement
of the collection of delinquent taxes
1.-THE forfeited tax law of 1881
differs Efrom the forfeited tax law
of 1899 in one very essential feature
The' law of 1881 provided for notice
to the delinquent by publication only;
the law of 1899 provided for notice by
publication and also an additional per-
sonal personal notice by mail and by
personal service on the occupants by
the sheriff in the manner provided for
the service and return of summons in
civil actions. Every precaution was
taken to safeguard the interests of the
delinquent owners. If we had held
that the surplus over the amount of
the Judgment should be returned to
the owner, the owner would have re-
fused to redeem his property until the
land was offered for sale, with the end
in view of bidding it in for so per cent
of the taxes; then if he found that
there were other bidders he would out
bid them, with the assurance that in
any event he would mot have to pay
more than the full amount of the taxes,
fc- .lu Surplus ove1 and aas9ye the
taxes would be refunded to him. In
other words, the owner.would not pay
more than 80 per cent of his taxes un-
less he was forced to do 80 by other
bidders. What inducement would
there have'been for other bidders to be
present and bid at sale?
Again, we held that the delinquent
owner had the right to redeem until
the piece or parcel of land he was in
terested in was offered for sale, but not
after it had been offered. To have held
otherwise would have been to nullify
the law.
1T does seem to me as if our legisla-
lures and courts were too considerate
of the interests of tax shirkers.
Seventy-fve per cent. of the people of
Minnesota pay their taxes promptly.
1t is safe to assert that so per cent of
the farmers pay their taxes every year.
Poor people and people of moderate
means are generally the first to pay
their taxes. If all taxes were paid
promptly the rate of taxation in this
state would be reduced at least % per
cent.
II sincerely hope county officials will
stand pat and refuse to refund dollar
collected under the forfeited tax sale
until the supreme court of our state
directs it, and hope every individual
case will be fought to finish"