OCR Text |
Show THE ROBBING "MOUTH" SQUIRMS Tho only response of tho Smoot "Mouth" to Iho showing that it has been swindling the county and violating tho law in raiding the taxpayers in tho matter of tho publication of tho delinquent delin-quent tax list, is a railing accusation that Tho Tribune is overcharging in the matter of city notices. This charge against Tho Tribuno has been made from the same source often before, and is morel' the "Mouth's" stock snarl whenever it is caught stealing. Tho fact is that Tho Tribune is charging tho city on precisely the scale that tho Herald charged under tho Morris administration; ad-ministration; wo make a reasonable, fair charge, strict' in accordance with law. Tho Tribuno does not charge tho city above its regular rates, but rather below them, having no disnositiou to take advantage of tho situation. It has never had any disposition at all to inflict in-flict excessive charges upon tho eit-, and has not done so. On tho other hand, the "Mouth" has robbed the county of the sum which can bo fairly stated at $-1500 in its publication of tho delinquent tax list. It recoived $5727.."iO for the publication pub-lication of a tax list wliich lias cost the county in tho last few years an average of a little over $1000; viz., in J005, $1051.44; in 1906, $997.30; in 1907, $997.30; but in 190S the amount jumped 400 per cent to $5727.50, or fifty-eight cents per name. Tho "Mouth", explains ex-plains its system of charge as being by the inch. But no such rato as that is known to the law for this delinquent list publication. Tho law fixes the rate (see section '2G22, new Revised Statutes,) Stat-utes,) at t,went3'-fivo cents for "publishing "pub-lishing the namo and amount of taxes due ou each picco of properly." This, and this onl-, is the amount that the treasurer is allowed to collect on account of such publication. But the amount charged by the "Mouth" is fifty-eight cents per name and description: descrip-tion: a clear robbery and violation of the law lo the amount of thirty-thrco cents for each description. This thirt-three thirt-three cents must come out of the general gen-eral fund of the county, and is a sum of which the taxpayers who pay their taxes, nnd are supposed, under the law, to have nothing to do with the delinquent delin-quent list, must go down in their pockets and meet. Tho law contemplates contem-plates that tho taxpayers who are delinquent de-linquent shall themselves bear the cost of their delinquency to the sum of tweu-ty-fivo cents per name and description for the publication which the law re quires. This is a perfectly reasonable and just proposition. It is right that the delinquents should meet the cost of their delinquency in this respect. But it is not right, and neither is it lawful, lo charge up against the taxpayers who have paid their taxes thirty-threo cents on account of delinquencies, merely to furnish pap for lhe-pnrly organ. The law requiring that delinquent taxpayers shall pay twenty-five cents per name and description for publishing their delinquency de-linquency is cnlirelj' logical and proper. But it is quite impossible lo see. propriety propri-ety or logic in the idea of assessing other taxpayers who have paid their taxes promptly and are not delinquent at all, a sum amounting to thirty-threo cents over and above the charge to tho delinquents. To make this assessment against the prompt taxpayers is clearly an injustice to ovcry one of them. It is not only a violation of tho law in spirit and .in fact, but a tearing up of the whole foundation upon which the law is bnsed. To sa)- that A, who has paid his taxes, must pay thirty-threo cents on oach description on the .properly of 13, G, and D,-who havo not paid, is a clear robbery of A, who has nothing what-over what-over to do with the delinquencies of the others. U is in vain that the organ squirms nnd groans upon being caught in this robbery, this iufraction of Iho law, in its unconscionable charge for publishing tho delinquent tax list. Its charge was illegal, both in detail 'and in gross, and wholly wrong in principle. No such method of charge is;known to tho law or to justice. Tho rightful charge under tho law would havo reduced the "Moulh's" charge moro than half. Still, if tho Commissioners had observed the law and their oaths of office, they would have advertised for bids on this and so saved tho taxpayers all of $4500 on this advertising. Tho "Mouth" is caught direct and positively in an unlawful un-lawful charge and a robbery of the taxpayers tax-payers who. promptly pay their t.'ixcs, as well as of an injustice lo tho community com-munity in general. This direct violation viola-tion of the law for the purpose of robbery rob-bery is something that will not down. It is competent for any taxpayer to suo tho Cotiuty Commissioners for tho recovery recov-ery of this illegal charge, and thero is no doubt in the world but that such a suit would be successful. |