The Saint Paul globe., 1900-05-25
AUDITOR Dunn ON TAXES
STATE ACCOUNTANT MAKES A FEW
REMARKS ANENT THE CLEAR
ANCE SALE
REPLIES TO HIS CRITICS
Rulings Made by His Office, He In
sists, Have All Been in the
Interest of the Tax
payers.

State Auditor Dunn in an interview
with the Globe yesterday said:
Anent the forfeited tax sale which Il
about completed in the several counties
| Oh the state word or two may not be
amiss. In this Office we have attempted
to place a plain common sense inter
pretatton upon the provisions Of chapter
322 Laws of 1879 (the forfeited tax law)
and have endeavOred to construe the law
In the interests of the taxpayers of the
state, and we have the satisfaction OF
| knowing that in almost every county of
the state the law has been faithfully car
r1ed out and hundreds of thousands OF
collars of back taxes have been paid into
the county treasures 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
otherwise would have resulted in defeat
ing the object of the sale-the enforcement
of the collection Of delinquent taxes The
forfeited tax law of 1881 differs from the
forfeited tax law of 1859 in one very es-
sential feature. The law of 1881 provided
| for notice TO the delinquent by publica-
ton only; the law Of 1899 provided for
notice by publication, and also an addi-
| tional personal notice by mail and by per-
! SoEal 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 refused to redeem his prop
| erty until the land was offered for sale
with the end in view of bidding it in for
| 50 per cent of the taxes, then if he found
| there would be other bidders he would
| have outbid them, with the assurance that
| in any event he would not have to pay
more than the full amount of the taxes,
| for the surplus over and above the taxes
1 would be refunded to him. In other
words, the owner would not pay mere
| than 50 per cent of his taxes unless he
was forced to do so by other bidders.
| What inducement would there have been
for other bidders to be present and bid
| at sale? Again we held that the de-
| linquent 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 Let me illustrate: At the sale in
Morrison county the owner OF a large
| tract of delinquent lands in that county
| was present; when one Of the pieces he
owned was offered the auditor announced
| the description, and III clear and distinct
tones asked: Does the owner wish TO
| redeem?" The owner whom We will
| call "a" said'not word.
The auditor then announced that he
| would offer the piece for the full amount
| Of the taxes. No bid. 1t was then Of
fered for 50 per cent of the taxes; there
| were several bids in quick succession,
| and when "a discovered that the piece
would bring the full amount Of the
1 n tEfaT
| bidders said If IA wishes to redeem
| we will withdraw our bios. The auditor
| then requested "a, to cash up. a.
suaveIy remark I'd: Il withdraw my CT
| fer to redeem" The auditor reoffered
| the piece, several bids were received and
| "a" again offered to redeem. The au-
| 6itor very properly refused to consider
"A's" offer to redeem and sold the tract
| of land to the highest bidder, and for
| more than the full amount of taxes. IL
| the auditor had paid any further atten-
| ton to "a" he might have been offering
| that piece of land yet. Does any intel,i-
| gent man hold that the county auditor
| of Morrison county did not do exactly
| right? Was 1t not the dUty of the ccun-
| tv auditor. duty he owed to the tax
I payers of Morrison county, to secure
| every dollar of delinquent taxes he could
| secure? Would he have been justified
| in permitting "a" to nullify the pro
| visions of chapter 300 for the enforce
1nent Of the collection Of delinquent
| taxes?
We have been criticized for the sug-
| gestions we have offered in circulars
| cnanating from this office in connection
| with the forfeited sale, but all of our
| rulings and suggestions were in the In
| terests of the taxpayers and not IN
| the interest of the tax shirkerS. 1t does
| seem to me as if our legislatures and
1 re- Of
| ests of tax shirkers. Seventy-five per
| cent of the people of Minnesota pay the-r
| taxes promptly. 1t is safe to assert
| that so per, cent of the farmers pay their
| taxes promptly 1t is safe to assert
| pie of moderate means are generally
| the first to pay their taxes. The tax
| eyaders are usually people of means;
they let their taxes run until a com
pIaisant legislature provides for clear
| ing-up sale with the expectation that
| they can get off by paying the state
| taxes or a little more. There Is really
| little inducement for an individual 10
| pay his taxes promptly. Ii all taxes
| we're paid promptly the rate OF taXauon
| in this state would be reduced at least
25 per cent 1t is high time that the laws
! were construed in the interest of the tax
| DayerS. Anyhow, the taxpayers are Ger
| tainly entitled to a little consideration.
| JJp to the present time the tax evaders
| seem to have decidedly the best or II.
sincerely hope county officials will stand
pat and refuse to refund dollar col
lected under the forfeited tax sale until
the supreme court of cur state directs
| If and | hope every individual case Will
be fought 10 a finish The case or Farm
ham VS. Jones, 50 Mimi, will be cited.
| The decision was rendered sixteen years
ago, and as 1 have said at the outset
| the forfeited tax law Of 1881 and the for
| feited tax law of 1899 are not similar In
their provisions.
4TH AND ROBERT.