Year: 1872

To the Editors of the Union and American:


NASHVILLE May "a, 1S72.--Sir, permit me (as
don't think the County Court will) to answer
some of the pertinent questions asked by "De-
linquent' in hOrn in yesterdays issue of the
Banner. First he is sOlictOus of the interests of
the widow and her tender babes. Forgetting
that some two hundred suits have already been
brought on the former commissioner with in
creased and stinging costs against delinquents
before they even knew they were to be
the victims of the law. While it has been
the steady purpose OF the present Commissioner to
prevent further accumulation of costs and is
doing all in his power to make settlements with
delinduents before bringing suit against them; in
fact, am informed there viii be no suits brought
until after the parties are apprised OF their liabi


ity. So much for the poor widow and orphan
against some of whom such official power has
been hurled in those tloO hundred suits,


1t is way that is dark or a trick that is vain
TO collect the taxes and costs that is due the State
and county upon the descriptive list furnished by
the Comptroller of the STATE. Without doubt, the
Legislature were not babOOns. Why sir, You could
pick Legislature out OF the Lunatic Asylum who
would know better than to pass a law to only
collect the original tax when the costs could as
easily be collected, and which cost had been paid
out of the State treasury, for most assuredly the
State has paid those cOsts out Of the money re-
ceived from the taxpayers who have not shirked
their obligations TO the state. We will not quar-
rel over phraseOlOgy. 1t is enough to know the
Legislature took a common sense view Of the
matter. All persons who are not delinqueDts
have mutual pecunary interest in seeing these
costs are paid, because they have once contrib
ted through their own taxes to pay those
very identical costs, and being returned, viii
lessen future tax. There is one thing certain,
the Commissioner shall collect the costs as well
as taxes, because Section 2, Act March q, 1872,
requires the Comptroller to make out a deSCTip-
tive list of all land and the taxes due thereon In
the descriptive list of Davidson county, furnished
by Mr.. Pennebaker, the costs are included, and
Mr.. Chadwell has given his bond for the same,
and is bound to pay into the treasury Of the state
the cost as well tax. | would answer the
question, .'DOes not Section of said act inform
the Commissioner what his duties are?" by ask
ing another. - 8 not the act March 8, 1850, give
the same information to the former Commission
er. May l not say what is sauce for the goose IS
sauce for the gander. 1t is poor rule hat wont
work both ways.


If the Legislators intended to collect cost in
the one case they evidently did in the other, but
section 4 of the last act states expressly the
commissioner shall sell enough of the delin-
quents land to pay all costs. Now it is just rs
dubious that the Legislature did not mean the
latter costs as the former. In fact, it is plain it
the Legislature did not mean all costs they would
not have said all AS to the Legislature saying
the former sales we're irregular and void they
ment the State had not received the revenue due
her through said sales The Legislature is dis
tinct from the judiciary branch of the
Government, and it would take a judicial deci-
sion of a competent court to make said sales void.
The Legislature may repeal laws but not give
judicial decisions. Suppose no costs were added,
wouldn't it play tangle-fOOt with the revenue
department of the State and county? Who would
pay their tapes No one; it would be offering
premium for delinquency. County warrants
would not bring TWENTY-FIVE cents on the dollar,
and Tennessee money might be used for cigar
lighters. In fact, L cannot see how the Legisla-
ture could hSve been more explicit unless they
had filed up whole page repeating the same
sentence, like HelmbOld bitters are advertised


EPLURIBUS UFUM.