The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1912-02-10
DEMAND FOR Sl2,l6G.79
TAX REFUND REFUSED
COUNCIL BY VOTE oF4 To O-Two
NOT VOTING. TURNED IT DOWN
ABOUT THE FRIENDLY SEIZURE"
Council Members Sought to Learn Why
the Treasurer Made Seizure Before
JanLary 10Th.

The principal event OF the council
meeting held last Monday night was
the appearance OF Atty l. w Byers Of
ron River before the board and his re-.
quest that the sum OF $40. 1856. 70 be
refunded 70 the Bristol Mining Co
because OF an alleged irregularity in
the assessment OF taxes assessed against
that company in 1911
AS was stated in former issue, the
request for the reflnd was laid upon
the table at the time II was presented
and, as courtesy 70 Mr.. Byers. the
matter was held open untiI he could
appear IN person and argue the matter.
Mr.. Byers was on hand and the mat
ter was taken from the table. He stat
ed that the reason for asking the refund
was that tho property of the Bristol
Mining Co was illegally assessed that
the valuation as fixed by the state tax
commission was very much greater
than the value upon which residence.
business property and other real estate
was assessed at IN the city Of Crystal
Falls. Mr. BYers contended that.
" hereas the Bristol property was as
sessed at 75-per cent. the general resi-
dence and business property was not
assessed at more than 40-per cent of
their true cash value
The council men listened at.entiyely
TO the attorneys argument and when
he had finished told him that the fixing
OF the valuation ON the Bristol mine
was not the doing OF the city officials
but OF the state tax commission and
that II was matter beyond the iuris-
dictiOn Of the city that 80 tar as the
refund asked foi went. the council
could not counteDanee any suoh de-
mand for the reason that it would
cripple the city treasury. even though
the demand had merit to it, conten-
tion which the aldermen denied.
The matter of the seizure of the pro
pcrty OF this concern was touched upon
by the aldermen Mr. jackson wanted
10 know how il was that the city
treasurer could. before the 10th day of
January be induced TO make y seizure
IL property when there was no danger
II it's removal from the county. Mr..
3yers replied that the procedure was.
10 donbt, favor done him by the city
reasurer and during the discussion it
was brought ont that had the seizure
rot been made until after the 10th of
January the Bristol company would
rave mad 10 paw into the city treasury
he sum OF about 800 in collection fee
nd by getting the treasurer 10 make
he seizure before the i0hh oI January
he company still saved it's rights Of
suit at any lime within
TX years IL the taxes were paid
Ind@r simple protest. then the suit
vonId have 10 be commenced inside Of
q days
In justification of the position Of the
mining company II was pointed out
nat several companies on the west side
4 the county are considering the com
On suits 80 as 10 save their
lights in court should the action now
eing prosecuted by the Newport Min. :
ng company be successful.
The question of the disposition OF
be refund being before the council the
emand was rejected by vote of to
Aldermen Nesbitt and Runbsck re-
used to vote on the question. their
laim being that they we're not sutiici
ntly informed on the merits OF the
ase
-