Omaha daily bee., 1907-01-22
TROUP AND SCAVENCER TAX
Judge Explains His Position in Reply to
Finks Proposition.
PRIVATE RIGHTS AND PUBLIC INTEREST
Property Owners Are Protected, but
the Public H. Not Deprived of
Its Due by the Recent
Decision.

The attention Of Judge Troup being called
TO the somewhat extensive criticism OF
County Treasurer Fink of the recent opin-
Ion in the scavenger suit announced by
him. said:
Under scarcely any other circumstances
than the present could l be induced to dis
cuss, in the nature of a newspaper con-
troversy, the quality OF any OF my acts
upon the bench But from the fact that
It seems that Mr.. Fink, either from ignor-
nnce or willfulness persists in misrepre-
sentation, Notwithstanding he has been
plainly advised of his errors. and from the
further fact that the matter pertains to
the public revenue, a subject in which all
the people are concerned, l make you this
brief statement, and this only:
For more than three years have pre-
sided over the docket on which has been
pending the scavenger suit. During all Of
that time 1 have endeavored to labor hard
and conscientously to the end that the law
should be administered Alright and complete
Justice done in respect TO this subject. as
understood 1t.
Il think every attorney that came before
me during that time, whether representing
taxpayer or taxgatherer, will bear me out
| in the statement that l did not permit
single dollar Of taxes, either general or
! special, to escape payment If there existed
any fair, legal and just ground for its
] enforcement
Extent of scnvenEer Suit.
1.-The scavenger suit as originally COM
menced consisted of something like $4,000
tracts, each one of which was considered
A separate suit OF this numberl all but
about 100 have been put in decree, or the
nearly 1900 tracts in decree have not can
D 10, ha aupallod
knowledge from beginning to end a single
dollar. either Of principal or interest, OF
general taxes excepting in two recent in
stances. The first of these was the can
collation. of a comparatively trifling amount
In a case, peculiar I'm its nature, in which
1 was compelled under the express and re-
peated rulings Of our supreme court TO
hold the assessment void. The other is the
one referred to by Mr. Fink wherein 1t was
disclosed by the undisputed evidence that
the taxing officers had flagrantly disre-
gar1ed every provision of the law respect
ing the right of the property owner to
some reasonable notice and opportunity to
| appear before the Board of Equalization
and be heard upon the Justice of the val
uation of his property and the tax about
to be placed thereon.
TT was conceded by counsel on both sides
of this case that this was fatal omis-
sion. Yet Notwithstanding that the owner
in this instance. after deducting a pro rata
valuation for the streets and alleys which
had since been dedicated TO the city, paid
into the treasury or will pay, the sum of
$1,000, which was admitted to be equivalent
to the principal of the original tax, the
city FORGETTING the accumulated interest
only.
Error of Taxing Authorities.
Il have since held that the fragrant omis-
sion on the part of the taxing officers to
give to the property owner some fair and
reasonable notice and opportunity at some
stage OF the tax proceedings prior to the
ultimate enforcement of the tax against
the owners property. to appear before
| some competent tribunal and be heard as
to the Justice of the valuation placed upon
| his property, and the tax sought to be en-
/ forced against the same is 2 jurisdictional
defect a taking of property without due
process of law, a constitutional pre-
requisite which the legislature itself could
not dispense with. and the tax thus placed
| Is void; that the legislature itself, not
| having the power to dispense with this re-
qtirement in the first instance, IT has not
| the mower to dispense with It by So
| called curative act and thus validate an
otherwise absolutely invalid tax.
'Tf this be not sound law. let this emil
nent jurlst, Mr. Fink. point out wherein
/ 1t is defective. But / have likewise held
| that the institution of the scavenger suit
| does now afford all taxpayers, made de-
PENDANTS therein, ample notice and oppor-
tunity to be heard In that suit, wherein
! all complaints of injustice, IL any, may be
adjusted and a just and equitable tax de-
! creed therein. But that It follows, both
on authority and principle, that when the
tax was void at it's inception no back in
terest can adhere to the tax thereafter
decreed, so that the interest at most is all
that is liable to be forfeited.
Remedy for the Condition.
"For the benefit OF Mr.. Fink will also
say that Notwithstanding the Homer de-
cision by the supreme court, but by virtue
thereof l have likewise held that con-
frmation Of sale shall not be withheld nor
any, case already In decree opened up be-
cause Of the objection made that the tax
was void on the ground of the jurisdictional
omission above referred to. but that the
property owner at this time will be ree-
gated to his remedy at law or some other
action in that behalf for his relief"
NINETY NEW HILL ENGINES