The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-05-11

the county auditor. certified to the cor
may be legally allowable, is palpable
fraud on the real parties interested
This offending is chargeable to the
| county auditor as ex-officio clerk or sec
| rotary of the board of county commits
sioners. But different and more seri-
Gus offending is chargeable against him
in his character as county auditor.
Whether Mr.. Johnson or his deputy, Mr..
Griswold. or any other of his clerical
force, possessed knowledge of the real ma
ture of the transaction involved, the
c. o b e does not pretend to know: but
it is certain up to this time that the
county auditor must be held at least
morally responsible. For the redemption
of tax certificate which is In the hands
of the receiver of an fnsolvent corporation
the county auditor issues his redemp-
ton warrant on behalf of the county
in favor-of whom? OF the holder or
owner of that tax certificate? Not at
all. He issues it to those whom mement )
inquiry would have enabled him or
his assistants to learn, if they did not
already know, had not dollar of inter
est in the tax certificate or In the proper
ty affected by it.
That warrant directed the payment by
the county of something like $500 to
man or men who have not dollar Of
substantial interest in the transaction.
With that warrant in his or their posses
sion. or with the money realized from it.
they go to tie receiver whom they know
to hold the tax certificate and buy it
from him, paying him. virtually, If not
actually, from the proceeds of the warrant
which the county auditors Office puts in
their possession. pocketing something IKE
$l2C0 by the transaction.
1t will be thus seen that, either con-
sciously or unconsciousIy, the money of
the county is furnished by the county
auditors office to one or more individuals
to carry through transaction which is
utterly without moral status
Why did Auditor Johnson or his deputy
or clerk issue that warrant before thew
knew that the parties to whom they is
sued it were the bona f1de owners of the
tax certificates? Why did they, or anv
OF them, issue the redemption Warrant
before they had the tax certificate in
their possession? Why did the county
auditor, or any of his clerks, vouch to thu
board Of county commissioners for tha
correctness of the proceedings taken IN
to the time of the issuance of the re-
demption certificate without having
knowledge of the legal correctness Of
those proceedings?
Ihere may be collision or there may
not be, between Mr. Johnson or soma
one or more of his clerical help. ana
the person or persons who engineered
this transaction whereby the country's
money was made available to furnis,
capital toindiv.dualsto purchase this tax
certificate. About that the C OBJ knows
nothing, and has at this time no opin-
ION to express. But it does know that
the transaction in itself in all it's phases
is one which reflects very seriously on
the official character or methods Of the
county auditor.
If it should prove to be the fact as in
tlmated, if not alleged, by State Auditor
Dunn, that questionable transactions of
this general character are frequent, to-
ward which the county auditor or his
office force bear the same relation as
they do in this case, the matter is one
which has a much broader scope than
it derives from this particular transac-
ton.
Whether Auditor Johnson likes it or
not his official character is era civ
impugned. The TRANSACTIONS of whica
this one is a sample usually invo-ve a
fraud or wrong on somebody or 9th r
With rigid performance of their duties
in the premises by the public officials
whose actions are involved there coull
be no such transaetiors car led out.
Every public official identified in aav
way with the pay ment of taxes knows
what opportunities for llegit mate, if
not Illegal, gain such transactions afford
Mr.. johnson cannot plead ignorance In
such cases. He has he-n too Ieny in Of
fee, and he is altogether too shrewd and
too worldly man to have any miscon-
eeptions or misunderstanding in tits be-
half. If, knowing of the recurrence of
such transactions from time to time as
he must, he did not take, as he a9re ars
not to have taken, the steps n cessa. v
to prevent such operations, he is to be
regarded as a very complaisant, very
negligent or very igno ant official.
Whichever of the Sc characters he
chooses finally to fall back upon in ex-
planning this transaction, or in his eff
fort to break the force of Auditor Dunn-s
imputation, it viii be a very difficult per
Torrance on his part to conn letel- cl ar
his official skirts. Nothing which ne has
thus far advanced can be regarded as
having this result and nothing short Of
the most exhaustive examination. of al,
such transactions III the, PAST during.
Auditor Johnson's administl alton of his
Office can be fleet in this regard. or
can satisfy the public that tie has not
been official collision somewhere.