Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1912-03-07

| Having been repeatedly called
upon TO explain my contention as To
| the county being entitled TO several
| thousand dollars of certain tax-liens
or titles, and those to whom have
explained having urged the placing
OF the matter before the tax payers
generally. shall in this article. as
best ] can in limited space. set
forth the facts on which base my
contention. In this belief am not
alone, as our States Attorney in
formed the County Commissioners
at their last meeting i'm JANUARY this
year that in his opinion the county
could recover about $4,000 if the
present commissioners thought it
advisable to repudiate the sale made
by the County Commissioners in
1901 of the county's interest in
certain tax title lands to the Hack
ney-Boynton Land Company
Now, the writer of this article
takes the stand that it is perfectly
proper. right and just for our pres
ent board to repudiate the deal made
at that tune, on the ground that the
sale at an amount of over 50, 800 less
than was due the county was pro
cured by fraud and the corrupt use
of money by the said land company.
To repudiate the sale and claim the
SIS. 500 and legal interest would place
the county in the position that it was
before the fraudulent sale, and
would not deprive the land COMPANY
of one cent that it has acquired
honestly. My statements must be
necessarily much abbreviated ON ac-
count OF space, and many interesting
details omitted. but shall endeavor
to make the same clear to the care
full reader. and shall confine myself
to the absolute truth, Of which !
have the evidence to verify my state
ments.
The facts i'm connection with the
transaction, so far as material to a
proper understanding, date back to
over ten years ago, when in October
1901, Emmons county, by published
notice i'm the Emmnons County Rec
ord, advertised that the commissions
ers would sell the county's interest
in 10000 acres of land to which the
county had acquired taX-lien for
unpaid taxes. and called for sealed
bids to be filed with the auditor by
| November A, 1901. either for the en-.
tire list or for any separate descrip-
tion.
At the meeting held ON the 4th,
when the bids for the land were
opened, there were the following
bids: I. L. Beiseker. for quar-
ters; o. o. johnson, a; III. ID. Con
nor, a; w. M. Matthews, B. j +.
Horton, 2; and A. I. Patterson, W.
Mittlesteader, w. Y. Norris, w
Colville and f. h. Irvine, quarter
each all bidding as much or more
than was due the county ON the par
ticular tracts on which they bid, be
| ing, for the 4 100 acres, 81 1896
and bid of the Hackney Boynton
Land Company of sll 600 for the en-
tire tract, which was about 60 per
cent of the amount due the county.
4 Now, as matter of law, the
county had a right to sell the
county's interest for the amount
Il due, but not for a lesser amount
which rule had been adhered to
heretofore. Carlos N Boynton, on
behalf of the Hackney -l'oynton Land
Company, was present at this meet
| ing and was endeavoring topersuade
the commissioners to accept his bid
for the whole trace, and sand that he
woud not take any unless he could
get all; and C. A Patterson, who
was then clerk of court. and Gus
| Herolz, who was thencounty auditor,
both sales solicitors for the said
company, were also urging the COM
missioners to sell the entire tract,
stating that the title Of the county
might be upset and the county de-
feated out of its claim to the taxes.
Patterson was drawing a salary from
the Hackney Boynton Land Company
Of S225 per month, and was also
/ drawing the regular salary of clerk
of court. Herolz was drawing the
auditors salary, and, as shall show
later. was not talking entirely as d
pastime, or for his health, or in the
interest of Emmons county. Carlos
i N. Boynton, assisted by these two
county officials, by argument and
persuasion of one kind and another,
had persuaded the county commits
sioners to reject all the other bids
and accept that of the Hackney
Boynton Land Company. when Ed.
Braddock (who represented T. l..
Beiseker) and W. M. Matthews be-
gan to get noisy. and threatened to
make some trouble if their bids were
turned down, which resulted in a
| final arrangement whereby Belseker
was let nave the lands on his offer,
and Matthews was to keep still and
the Hackney Boynton Land Company
would convey to him his lands at his
offer, which they did on the 23th day
of January, 1902, as shown by the
records in the register of deeds
office. HerolZ was then Instructed
to convey the balance of the lands,
= S,sl7. IS acres, to the Hackney Bovn.