The Indianapolis journal., 1903-06-10
"TAx FERRET, COMMISSIONS.

A new phase of what is popularity known
as the tax ferret business is presented
by the question whether the State is liable
for any part of the commissions earned
under contracts made with county COM
missioners for the collection of taxes. Tax
ferret" is the popular designation of ex-
perts employed to examine county records
and collect moneys due in the form of de-
linquent taxes. or taxes on property not
returned for assessment. 1t also covers the
possible case of negligence or dishonesty
on the part of county officers, resulting in
defects. omissions false entries in the
public records, and the consequent loss OF
public funds Such a law is clearly in the
public interest 1t provides that county
commissioners may make such contracts
with experts lin cases Of indispensable pub
lie necessity" and the Supreme Court has
held. in Garrigus vs.. Board of County Com
missioners of Howard county [l57 Ind, 1881
that the commissioners the judges as
to when the public necessity exists. In
making such contracts they may agree
to pay whatever commission they may
deem reasonable, the only provision of the
law being that the contract shall be spread
of record. In the case above referred to
the court held that one of the most obvious
duties Of county commissioners ''is to dis
cover and collect all moneys and property
belonging to the county which are wrong
fully withheld from it, or which have been
lost. or misapplied, through mistakes, negli-
gence or fraud
The question whether the State is liable
to county commissioners for the commits
sions on its share of the sequestered taxes
thus discovered and collected. is a new
one. The law makes no reference to the
subject and goes no further than empower
ing county commissioners to employ ex-
on the case of the treasurer of Shell
by county, who insists on deducting the
States share of tax ferret commissions
before making settlement with the State.
This commission in the Shelby county case
amounts to about $3.50, and 1t is understood
that the same question will arise in twenty
five or thirty other counties. On general
principles the Journal ventures the opin-
ion that the State is not liable for any part
of the commissions earned by tax ferrets
under contracts made with county commits
sioners. The State collects its taxes
through the counties. 1t provides the
machinery for the work, prescribes the
duties of county officers and requires them
to account for all moneys due the State.
If any part of the taxes justly due the
State is unpaid. diverted or misappropri-
ated. the county officers are presumably re-
sponsible for it. and if county commission
ers undertake to rectify matters by en-
ploying experts it should be at their own
expense. The State should not be required
to pay commissions for the collection of
taxes which II was the duty of county Of
icers to have collected and accounted for
without any commission. The commissions
for services In cases of indispensable public
necessity. but they are not authorized to
enter into any contract on behalf Of the
state 1t is the duty of county treasurers
to account to the State for all State
moneys that come into their hands through
any channel whatever without deducting
a commission for collecting the same This,
at least, is the opinion Of the Journal,
though Ii is subject to reversal by the
Su nrene Courf