The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-05-27
AUDITOR TAKEN 70 TASK
Err. DUNN's POSITION AS TO Did,
DING IN LANDS AT TAX SALES
ATTACKED
REVERSES LAW AND COURTS
Supreme Court and Attorney Gen
eraI 10th Declared to Have
Held In Opposition
to His Views.

A st. Paul business man makes the
following reply to State Auditor Dunn's
recent interview on tax sale practices in
which he intimates that the Princeton
man Is a law unto himself irrespective
of decisions Of the supreme court or
other legal authorities. He says:
Il am the unfortunate land owner "A
you condemn without ceremony in your
so-called interview In yesterdays
Glob c and Pioneer Press fo- my strict
Iy lawful acts at the late Morrison county
tax sale Section 1899, of Minnesota
Statutes. 1894 provides that the owner
may bid in his own lands at any tax
sale. Chapter 322, Laws 1S99-the forfeit
ed tax law-allows the owner, or any
other person. to bid in lands at this tax
sale for not less than so per cent of the
original taxes. The state attorney gen
eraI has recently held that the owner
has right to redeem his land at any
time before his land was struck off TO
an actual purchaser at the tax sale. And,
indeed Section of the Act of 1899 pro-
Vides that any piece of land may be re-
deemed at any time before the sale
thereof. and, of course, the land is not
sold until it is struck off to purchaser.
The language of the statute is plain
as not to require construction. Why.
then, should the lawful acts of one of
the common people be published through
the public press with contempt and ridi-
cule by high state official with the
attorney generals opinion now before
him?
I'm Farnham VS.. Jones, 80 Minnesota.
Z. the supreme court of this state held
that upon sale of lands for taxes the
land owner was entitled to recover any,
surplus remaining after the amount
-.
The attorney general has recently held
to the same effect under the 1899 law
Every one will recognize the honesty
and justice of such a law. for after the
claim of the state for taxes has been
paid in full what right could the state
possibly have to any surplus?
Again. Section 1852, Minnesota Statutes,
1894, requires the state auditor to con-
strue the tax sale law in accordance
with the advice and opinion of the at
torney general, and such decision shall
have force and effect until annulled by
the judgment or decree of a court of
competent jurisdiction This clearly re-
quires the state auditor to first obtain
the advice and opinion of the attorney
general on all questions relating to the
construction of the tax laws, and then
perempterily requires the state auditor
TO conStrue the statute In accordance
with the advice and opinion of the at
torney general The statute commands.
and leaves nothing to the discretion Of
the state auditor
Notwithstanding this undisputed law,
you Immediately prior to the tax sale
mailed a printed circular of instructions
10 each county auditor OF the state, com
handing the county auditor as your sub
ordinate officer. to refuse the landowner
the right to redeem after the land had
been offered for sale, ard that when a
tract of land was sold for more than
the taxes. the surplus should be credited
10 the revenue fund, and in no event
should the surplus be paid to the orig
inal owner. You do not claim that be-
fore issuing this circular you first OBJ
tanned the opinion Of the attorney gen
eral. and then construed the statute in
accordance Herewith. as required by the
statute. The attorney general is, by
statute, your legal official adviser, and
is elected and paid by the people of the
state, in part for the purpose. The at
to-ney general has since over-ruled your
circular as to the law on both points, and
in effect, held that your instructions to
your subordinate officers were illegal