Year: 1861

and rendered valid and binding both in law and
equity.n The third section permits the 'org
nal y assessment rolls TO be introduced as evi-
dence while the second section only allows the de-
fendant to plead that 'the taxes had been paid be-
fore suit" or ''that he had not the property men
toned in the complaint at the time of the assess
ment." There is no provision in the bill allowing
the action of the Supervisors to Offset the evidence
| of the "originaln assessment list. Section rem
ders judgment thus obtained, "a lien upon all
other property of the defendants liable to taxation
and may be enforced against the same" No reser-
yation of the homestead, no reservation of the
sewing machine, the COW, or any taxable thing
All may be swallowed up for the collection of pal
try tax, swelled TO an enormous sum by costs and
charges, Sherifs advertising for the benefit of the
INDECENT Wyman, and 25 per cent. to the Prosecut-
ing Attorney. Is it not robbery? Is it not damna-
BILE 1t is true that the Prosecuting Attorney
might not prosecute for the amount Of the 'orgnal
assessment, but our Senators, knowing something
about our Prosecuting Attorney prefer that 1t shall
be so arranged that he cannot.


End. II is objected to making all the property OF
defendant liable for taxes levied upon other spec
flied property If property depreciates so fast as
not to command the two or three per cent. levied
against il for taxes, are of the opinion that the
defendant is unfortunate enough to be excused,
and that the public need is not great as to re-
quire his further oppression. The District Attor-
neys need for his 25 per cent may be more urgent,
! and if so, we would suggest that he graciously
permit his bantng to be amended, so that his fees
and the expenses of advertising which would go to
the support of the organ that backs him in this at
| tempt at plunder, only, be directed against 'all
other property of the defendants liable to taxa
tion.' This would, at least, aequit the public Of
appropriating the household gods of our citizens
to its use but still enable the Prosecuting Attorney
and his organ to live if not exactly .'by the sweat
of their brows.'


3rd. The 5th section Of the bill is Objectionable
in giving title in fee to property, and granting
writ of assistance to the purchaser without giving
the owner day of grace for redemption. Such
summary proceedings we believe to be unconstitu-
tional robbery, whether perpetrated by the public
or by an individual. Indeed, we believe the whole
thing to be unconstitutional and that it would not
effect the larger cases, where the involved was
sufficient to carry it to the Supreme Court. But it
would be upon the smaller sums which could not
seek the protection of that Court that the Disti let
Attorney would prey.


4th. 1t is objected to the 7th section that it al
lows the District Attorney ten per cent for doing
nothing. 1t compels man who has paid his taxes
to tender his receipt and fee often per cent the
amount of his taxes, to the Prosecuting Attorney
or that officer may proceed to collect his 25 per
cent for Prosecuting suit for delinquent taxes
against man who has paid them and obtained his
receipt. Were we too severe in stigmatzing such
a dsgraceful provision of a empated law as a
trough scheme of punder for the aggrandizement
of single individual z! Is it any excuse pallia-
tion of the oppression, that similar provision is in
law of another county? Is it policy for the gov
ernment to add per centage upon per centage to
the taxes levied for the benefit of INDECENT or prof
ligate officials until the citizen who has sought to
build himself home in our county, is driven from
our mids,2 We have no language too bitter or
too "severe1 with which to condemn such pratt
cal law, no matter if it had been fastened upon
every other county in the State.


9TH. Objections are made to the Sth section in
its entirety It's effect is to levy the District At
torney's per centagc, upon all unpaid taxes. The
man who should go voluntarily and pay his taxes,
must still pay bonus of ten per cent on the
amount of his taxes to the District Attorney or be
liable to prosecution for % per cent. thereon to-
gether with costs and charges. In what estimation
should good citizens hold such an infamous, theiv-
ing law defended with such frenziel desperation
by the District Attorney, he the opportunity
of thus degrading to serfdom and legally robbing
our citizens pass from his grasp Let us imagine





whose crops have failed or miner who has lost
his all in the river, obsequiously approaching,
questing his Pimpships scrutiny of his tax re-
ceipt, and begging his acceptance of his tithng.
With what lordy air he would accept of the hon.
age and the tribute, pronounce him MY good fell
low" and possibly invite him into the next door
bar to liquor.


We do not wish to be understood as opposing
law for the collection of delinquent taxes. Remove
the oppressive and plundering features from the
present bill and its passage shall not be defeated
for the want of our support.


We shall now proceed to correct the falsehoods
put forth by Smith in defence of his bantling.-
Having drafted the bill, and being in consequence
familiar with its provisions, his unqualified and d.
rect distortion of its provisions could only have been
put forth with the deliberate purpose to misrepre
sent and deceive the public in relation thereto. We
care nothing for the slang and blingsgate with
which his article abounds. They but establish his
own character as that of depraved and abandon
ed wretch, upon whom to infet personal chastse-
ment would require the sacrifice of the dignity of
our manhood. He charges in direct terms
that the RECORD had presented an illegal and
unjust account against the county, when he
knew that such charge was wholly false. He
knows that we have dealt with the county for near
" eight years. and that the only charge which ever
gave rise to controversy, was settled by Board
adverse to the RECORD, because it had been pro-
nounced legal and consequently just, by that ac-
complished lawyer. Stepeen J. Field, the present
Chief Justice of the State. Judge Wells was our
Attorney, and will, doubtless, remember whereof
we speak. We speak thus of evidence in order to
defend the character Of deceased friend, who was
at the time the proprietor of the RECORD. If our
enforcement of legal account against the county
is to be considered robbery by the public what is
thought of supervisors Freer and Murphy who paid
Wymau $50 from the contingent fund, for publish
ing the official result of the election of so, when
we had published the same table for former years in
much better shape, for a warrant for $50 on the
general fund of the county, worth but IS cents on
the dollar. We refer to the records. Is not such