Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1901-03-28
GREAT DISCOVERY
County Auditor Niemeyer Finds Stuts-
man County Lands Never on
Assessment Rolls.
Estimated That 10000 Acres Have
Not Been on Assessment
Rolls.
Comparison of Tax Lists With Land
Office Records Brings About
the Find.

InfOuBn the EFFORTS OF county Autll-
tor Niemeyer, a large amount OF what
was once government land situated in
this county and which has been es-
Gaping taxation will be listed on the
assessment rolls hereafter and will
pay it's just share of taxes. This land
lies in the five eastern ranges, 62, 63,
81, Is and 66 and is within the juris-
diction of the U. S. land office at
Fargo 1t is sea altered all. over that
part of the county in the above
ranges. 1t is estimated that not less
than 10000 acres in tracts and parcels
ranging from 40 to 100 acres have
never been placed on the assessment
rolls and at a low valuation for tax
purposes, the county has been out at
least slO,5OO in uncollected taxes,
which should have been assessed and
collected since the years 1893, 1894 and
and 1895 from which years the lands
became taxable.
For some time Auditor Niemeyer
has been convinced that not all Of the
land liable for taxes were on the
assessment lists. The commissioners
expect to make an abstract of the tax
list and in checking over two town
ships the auditor discovered several
cases where lands were incorrectly
listed and also in which descriptions
were missing He went to Fargo and
had a complete list prepared of the
government lands in this county on
which final proof had been made in
that office, and on comparison with
the county records discovered that the
owners OF about $50 descriptions Ct
land were not paying taxes and the
had never been recorded as
subject to taxation. The owners. are
both residents and not-residents and
it is considered rather strange that
the discovery has not been made be-
fore. The county treasurer has had
several inquiries as to taxes on land
not assessed but the matter was never
before investigated.
Who is to blame is not certain. The
list OF lands may not have been certi-
fed to the county by the land officials
after final proof, or if they were have
not been SO recorded.
1t is very probable that an examina-
tion of the records of the Bismarck
land office will disclose other tracts on
which final proof has been made,
and which have not been put on the
assessment rolls. The number will
not be many as that part of the county
comprised in ranges 81, 6S and SO, is
the least settled part Of the county.
The auditor will have the list checked
and compared to determine just what
county lands within the Bismarck
Office, have been over looked after
final proof, if any.
AS to the matter of the cOuntyS
collecting the back taxes on the lands
above mentioned, Sec. 1888 of the Re-
vised Codes says: "If any tax on any
property liable to taxation is prevent
ed from being collected for any year
or years, by reason of any er-
roneous proceedings or other cause,
the amount of such TAX which such
property should have paid, shall be
entered on the tax list for the corpor-
ate authorities of any county, town.
ship, city. against such property for
the next succeeding year.
Under this section the commission
ers can, no doubt, proceed to collect
the back taxes on this property since
the year of final proof in each case.
Some Of these lands have valuable inn
provements, and many are under cul-
tivation.
The annual tax to be collected from
the above, mentioned lands next year
will amount to about $500, or to more
than the combined salary of the
auditor and the deputy. 1t is "a saving
TO the county tnaC the taXpayerS-aU
least those not owners of the missing
lands-will appreciate, and with the
$4,000 or $4,000 of back taxes col
lected, will make a fine showing for
the enterprise Of the auditor in look
ing after the county's interests in so
matter
l]noccupied Lapds II Stutsnan County.