The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1917-09-13

on their money, by investing and con-
cealing it in bonds and stocks OF divers
corporations located in various other
states. He explained that these were
only three instances out of many more
of which he knew and could obtain the
exact data and information. In one of
the three cases mentioned he stated
that the party concerned had perjured
himself in his tax return made to the
county by swearing that he had no
property of this nature, when, as a
matter of fact, the total valuation of
the property owned by him which he
had omitted from taxation for fifteen
years aggregated $66S,910.O0, which,
figured at an average tax rate Of 8
percent, would make $20,067.30 in tax
es due by this party which had never
been assessed or paid. In the second
case which Mr.. Van Der Veer cited as
an example, the party concerned had
omitted property for nine years which
had total aggregate valuation for all
of the years of $600,025, which, figured
at an average tax rate OF percent,
made $18,0O0.75 in taxes which had
never been assessed or paid. In the
third case which Mr.. Van Der Veer
cerned had omitted property for nine
teen years which had total aggregate
valuation for all Of the years of ST.
65S,475, which, figured at an average
tax rate of 3 percent. made $49,754.25
in taxes which had never been assess
ed or paid. Thus, the total amount
of taxes due and unpaid in these three
instances was over $4,000. Mr.. Van
Der Veer stated to the Commissioners
the exact years, the amount of prop
erty actually owned which ought to
have been listed by the owner, and the
nature of the securities in which the
money had been invested in other
states, all with the utmost particular
ity. He further said to the board that
the evidence in his possession in these
three instances was absolutely con-
elusive, and that he could and would,
if employed by the county, compel the
payment of the whole amount of these
taxes, along with many thousand dol
lars more of the same character, at a
very early date. The proposed writ
ten contract of employment was also
produced by him. 1t had previously
been submitted to the county attorney,
Gath P. Freeman, for his examination.
Mr.. Freeman suggested slight amend
ment which Mr.. Van Der Veer prompt
ly agreed to make. Mr. Van Der Veer
had present, and offered to show the
Commissioners, numerous letters of re-
cent date showing his character and
efficiency, written by county officers
of many counties in this state in which
he had been employed to discover Sc
questered property on which the taxes
had been evaded. He also gave the !
names of county officials in surround
ing counties where he has worked, |
Randolph county being one of them,
with the request that the Commission |
ers communicate with these persons |
as to his character and efficiency. He |
showed the Commissioners where his |
work has been instrumental in the col |
lection of over half million dollars In |
back taxes in the various other coun- |!
ties of the state where he had been |
Mr.. Seaney, one of the Commission |
ers, who has earnestly favored the col |
lection of these taxes from the start |
and who has been at all times outspok-
en- in. his advocacy of SO doing, ex-
pressed desire to sign the contract |
and accordingly did so,
it was also signed by Mr
Van Der veer. The other Commission
ers, Mr. Cheeseman and Mr.. Simpson,
declined to affix their signatures
They said that they did not think this
was the proper time to employ tax
ferret" and finally declared that they
wanted to consider the matter for a
while and make up their minds what
to do. Mr.. Simpson said further that
he would like to know what the people
Of the county thought about the mat.
ter.
In what l have thus written, Mr..
Editor, l have, except in a single in
attempted to make no argu-
nent in favor of the employment of a
tax ferret" nor have l made an ef-
tort to answer the arguments made by
he opponents of such employment. II
have merely confined myself to bare
statement Of the facts in the premises
with the view of leaving everyone who
nay care to read this communication
% draw his own inference and reach
his own conclusion.
HENRY U. JOHNSON.