Year: 1875

THE COLLECTION or CITY TAXES.


The announcement is made, unotficially it
is hue, but not the less authoritativcly, that
the ruling ring Of the Common Council Of
Chicago will not certify in August to the
County Clerk the amounts Of money needed
to be raised by ta1ation, that the same may
be extended on the books Of the County Col
1ector to be collected by him; but that they
will have the taxes Of 1875 collected under
the special law known as Bill 300.


It will be remembered TINT few weeks
ago the Supreme Court of this State unnni-
mously affirmed the decision Of Judge Wal
lace that no judgment could DO given for
delinquent taxes under that act


The General Revenue law Of the State
provides that any city may drop it's own
special system for the assessment and co1leo-
cording to the State valuation and collected
by the County Collector, AL delinquent
taxes have to be collected by the County Col
lector. Bill 800 provides that the city may
drop its special system and collect under the
State Law. Nevertheless, the City Of Chicago
persists in adhering to its special collections,
notwithstanding tho Supreme Court has set
aside every tA1-sa1e made under city laws
since the Constitution was adopted in 1870.
Last winter, in anticipation of the adverse
decision by the Supreme Court, the Corpora
ton Counsel, instead Of abandoning Bill 800
as to all future taxes, went to Springfield and
obtained an amendment to that Law, not, IS
l. ~ $4 al Ia &Enr IN tn
collect the city taxes Of 1874 under the State
Revenue act, but to patch and cobb1e up Bill
800 for future use and retention, for the sole
benefit Of ring OF city tax-eaters and black-
mailera


This is the old business Of patching and
tinkering bad law instead Of resorting to q
law which the Court declares is valid and
sufficient. The State Law requires the officer
applying for judgment on delinquent taxes to
declare ON oath that he has failed to collect
the same. But, under Bill 800, the county
officer applying for judgment never had the
business Of collecting the city taxes, and
could not say that he had failed to collect
what be never had authority to receive The
Supreme Court declared that Judgment could
only be applied for by an officer having au-
thority to receive the taxes. The amended
law declares that the County Collector may
taxes, or that the taxes were delinquent, and
that it would be sufficient for him to say that
the City Collector had reported to him TINT
the ta1es had not been paid And under this
himsy make-shift Of an amendment it Is pro-
posed to 60 On with the taxes OF 1875, and
have them lost, as hive been the taxes Of
1873, and probably 1874.


The Supreme Court say in their opinion
that 1.-THE affidavit Of the County Collector,
as required by the General Revenue Law,
implies that he had kga1 authority to COLLECT,
and that his inability to collect has resulted
from his being unable to obtain that from
which collection could be made" "It
is evident if there were no authority to col
lect, the affidavit would be wholly useless,
since its sole Office is to establish prima facie
tbs delinquency Of the taxpayer, and this r.
qurcs that he should haps .ta;led IN hi duty to
pdy."


The Constitution Of the State mnkes the



ply for judgment against delinquent taxes.
The Court says that officer must have had
legal authority to collect, and il he had no
authority to collect he could not ask for
judgment for delinquency Of which he had
no knowledge. It will not do for him to 20
into court and ask Judgment supon claim
that the City Collector reports certain taxes
unpaid The Constitution and the Revenue
law know no such officer as tho City Collector
in the matter Of the collection Of delinquent
taxes BY sale. The Constitution expressly
excludes all others thsn the County Collector.
Bill 800 excludes him from the collection Of
city taxes until after judgmentfor delinquency.
The Constitution provides that he alone shall
sen after judgment, and be alone eau apply
for Judgment He alone can report the
delinquency 10 tha Court, and h. cannot do