The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1903-09-17

F'sNNVsAO AL NOllGNAlIG PEf,ltt, MulCu
is 29 per cent of the amount collected.
Farmer Perllns-IS not this sup
positions case?
Lawyer Thorndike-No 1t is real
one except as to amounts and rates
of taxation. This construction of the
law was sought to be enforced in Tay-
lor VS.. Musaer, 50 o. s.. 6G5, and the
foregoing was claimed to lie the
proper Interpretation of the law by
one OF the most DIST nguishCd lawyers
of the scata, Cld whose name is Il
household word.
Farmer Perkins Suppose Doe
should have returned $1OO,OO1 and did
what would be Does tax bill, for the
omission of one dollar each year for
six years?
Lawyer ThornGike-It would be
$4,000, of which the tax inquisitor
would get S1,20120, the auditor would
get $240.24 and the treasurer would
get $300.30 total of S1,741.94 for col
lecting S6,OO6, which is 29 per cent Of
the amount collected.
Farmer Perkins-Is the construction
of this law the s:ole in each county Of
the state?
Lawyer Thorndike-No, l have CIV
en- you the extreme construction
which was contended for in the case
referred to. In another county the
penalty was only placed on the amount
of omitted property, which is just In
a third county the penalty was only
counted on the actual taxes which
should have been paid.
The second construction was applied
in Hamilton county, and the third in
Clermont county.
Farmer PeIkins-What was done in
amending the law in 1893?
Lawyer Thorndike-It was amended
so as TO apply the penalty only to
the amount omitted each year. The
attention of the legislature was called
to the awful construction of the law,
claimed in the So o. s., and at once
amended it. The same law, SO amend
ed, is now in force.
Farmer Perkins-As l see the case,
the 100000 Richard Roe had properly
returned was used as basis to pun
ish him for the 5000 omitted. Am
right in this view?
Lawyer Thorndike-You are.
Farmer Perkins, turn to page SS4
of the Ohio Statistics, 1902. "Add1-
tions to the tax duplicate upon infor-
nation received from inquisitors."
find the whole amount paid inquisitors
was S202, ,00507, or per cent of the
taxes collected on their additions.
notice that twenty-four counties made
no report of fees paid inquisitors, and
ten counties are left out. How do you
explain this?
Lawyer Thorndike-That report is
valueless except as to the taxes added,
which were s2,7O1 1O6.7O, The tax in,
quisitors were entitled to 20 per cent
of that, and no doubt got it-$540,-
221.34.
The county auditors were entitled
TO percentum of the taxes collected,
sos, ,04426, and no doubt received 1t.
The county treasurers were entitled to
percentum of the amount, S125 ,O55.32,
+ for collecting S2,70l,106.7 The total
grand duplicate for Ohio for 1902 was
1880 0885,3SS. For the collection or
this. county auditors and treasurers,
the state auditor and state treasurer 8
Office received SS57 ,996.27, four and
three-fftbs per cent, while the tax in
quisitors and county officers were EN-
titled by law to receive $773, ,32092 for
collecting 81, ,T01 106.70, or 20 per cent.
The county auditors and treasurers in
the entire state received as compen-
sation the sum of SS17,479.9S in 1902,
and the tax inquisltors and their aids
S773,320.92, or only $44,15609 less
that the county auditors and treasur-
ers. A system which requires the le-
galized expenditure of $773,320.9O over
and above that Of the auditors and
treasurers is necessarily rotton and
corrupt. 1t is based on false ideas
and theories and merits condemnation.
Many persons think the auditors and
treasurers ought to collect all the
taxes, but beside the SS57, ,99677 paid
them to collect the taxes in 1902,
$773.320.92 was authorized to be paid
ana no doubt was paid, to tax inquisl
tors.
Were the taxation amendment
adopted the three-quarters of mil
lion dollars paid tax inquisitors would
be saved and go direct to the state OF
the counties.