The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-05-12

county commissioners. We did NOT snh-
nit the same to the attorney renaroi
nor consult with him, for the rsaeon that
when similar applications were received
pack in 1887 the question was submitted
TO the attorney general, and he held
that the entire sale for 1891 end 1892 was
void, There Is no earthly Euse in s,,b.
hitting each individual case to the aftoN.
ney general, for the decision of fbA SRI.
preme court covered all cases OF a similar
nature. could not know, neither c6uld
the attorney general know, whether fine
facts alleged in the petition of Mr.. Cas-
sidy were true or not, We.relied upon.
and had q right to rely upon, the CERT
fcate of the tax committee Of the county
of Ramsey county and the auditor of
Ramsey county. do not know Mr.
| Cassidy, and have no means of knowing
his residence, nor has the attorney gener-
al any means of knowing, and It Is nre-
| posterous to suppose that either the az
| torney general or myself could personally
| investigate the- correctness of all such
petitions from the eighty-two counties
of the state.
AUDITOR SHOULD KNOW.
1T Is the duty, the sworn duty. of
the county auditor Of Ramsey county,
and the auditor OF all the other counties
| of the state to know that parties anply-
to the same. The county auditor IS the
clerk of the board of county commission
ers and under the charter of the CITY Of
st. Paul additional powers and duties are
conferred upon the county auditor OF
Ramsey county. AS / have said he
is the chief tax officer of the county.
section 492, page 800 Municipal Code Of st
Paul, and chapter IL, Of the new charter
provides that the four persons APPOINTED
/ w no har
and county auditors, or a majority there
Of, shall constitute the board of abate-
| ment, with authority to make abate-
ment of taxes or penalties, or both as
| they may deem Just and to ORDER any
tax which AS been Improperly paid by
mistake TO be refunded by the county
auditor"
The charter expressly mentions the
, county aduitor as a member of the
board, who passes upon all tax matters
Mark these words: And to order any
tax which has been improperly assessed
and paid by mistake to be refunded Nv
the county treasurer"
IF the county auditor is not the chief
tax officer of the county, If he does not
have charge OF the tax books of the
county, if he does not know about the
taxes or refundments, who does? What
is he paid a salary of $1,000 for doing?
Does any sane person suppose that a
board of county commissioners many OF
them perhaps not proficient in figures
can tell anything of the tax affairs of
county without the assistance of the
county auditor?
We do not make mistakes in this
office in rejecting applications for cor
rection Of assessment and abatement Of
taxes because the papers on their face
are not explanatory. kand no good rea-
son appears why the relief asked for
should be granted But we are not so
pig-headed that after satisfactory ex-
plantations has been given to refuse to
reconsider the same.r
I'VE are not infallible in this office,
but we do attempt to protect the inter-
ests of the taxpayers Of the state Of
Minnesota (and Ramsey county is part
and parcel of the state OF Minhesota) to
the best of our ability
THE present auditor of Ramsey has
probably received more censure at the
hands of the public examiner than any
other officer in the state of Minnesota,
and that is another proud distinction he
may enjoy.
IF you will turn to the files of the
Pioneer Press Of Aug. 10, 1882, you will
find an article with references to viola
ton Of the laws in his office under the
caption of Says the Deputy Dill It."
And you will find in the Pioneer Press
of Aug. %, the same year. where Mr..
Johnson discharged his deputy for al
legged fraud in connection with the re-
turn of tax sale premiums to purchasers.
Any act performed by my deputy in this
office is performed by men, and | assume
all responsibility for, TIE same. l will
admit now that I am to blame for APP
proving OF the refundments that are be-
ing discussed in the papers, because in
the light OF past experience l ought to
have known better. The safe policy to
follow Is to reject them all. and If the
parties have any rights in the premises
let them go to the courts and assert
their rights in each and every case