OCR Text |
Show I -ENQUIRER UNABLE I :1D ll'E REASQN- I 'ABLE HER j ' 1 PEOPLE I lUliili ominty Hiiih lost the power I II (MlflUVQ lllQ 'Colloc.lion of (Jl lill- 'Utieiit 'tn'xcs by 'public 6nle of the I unijiorly as fpreBi'rtbeil by tlie stnt-I stnt-I iites. KJtilU 'fdiltlty 'has also been I luprivefl of file 'potter to collect the I penalty, nnd tile rdst of advertising I -Hie (leililtjiterit 'list tniu year. "The I ribrfvc Ib tile opinion of four of the I leading rittorneys of provo. This I is Hlb point made by the Dr.MoCltAT in lust Tuesday istto The rEMcnAT does not nrsert or claim I that the tuxes winch are tielir tjiient pre invalid) these taxes are due and I should be paid, but it would not be I advisable for the county to collect I 'costs find penalties by summary I (process. Neither would it bead-I bead-I visable for the' the taxpayers to I evade tie payment of taxca because I the ronnty has made a mistako of having the tax list published in tin Enquirer which has proved its in- competency to publish the tax liM I in a legally ellicient manner. I KKQUITlEd'a itr.PLY. In an editorial of abuse, the I editor of the Enquirer or mime one I hired by him, endeavors to set forth I tlmttlio Dk.moCkat Iioh done the. I peoplu of tho county an injustice I because it claims that tho laws vJ I the state in regard to delinquent I tuxes have been, abused. The ed-I ed-I it' rial is more abusive than, logical I 6tid it would be well if the writer I of tlm same would . remember that I nbufie dees not answer a point in I law. I The Enquirer qnote the follow- I leg b nn exoneration fur the delay jl In the publishing of the tux list) 1 "Sec. 2677, Chapter ). Inform- 1 RUty or delay docp not invalidate ' tfx. No remanent or act lehiting to ajmsment or collection of taxcH U illegal on noeniwt of informality or became the mme whs not completed com-pleted within the time squired by Thp Demoorat does not nrguo that the utstssmeut or taxes ore invalidated. in-validated. The taxes are due and should be paid. The point the Dr.MociiAT makes: Through the delay cruised byCr qnirer the enmity has Inst j ..r to colled the delinquent! u hv sale or summnrv proopj up to the delay, de-lay, which is n t . tn ihe lns "f llio c-tttp, tlii' it v cmnot col-lent col-lent the pemlly ( id tho oost of HdvrrtMng been; tt e advertising was not dntin a! ling tn the law f,cO WHERE IH NOT1TE WAS FOR I-J THAN TflE STATUTORY M5, THOUGH nriT FOR JlN'GTiE DAY, TnE lMtO(lniTG8 WAS HELD TO nf FATALLY DEFECTIVE DE-FECTIVE JlV NO NOTICE AT ALL II) BEEN GIVEN, cays Cooleyfhis book on Taxation. Taxa-tion. I Sec. 207eferred to by thn Enquirer, drliot mention iho tax sale, but re to the validity of J taxes and Augments, which the DFMOptiAifa s never questioned, It appears the Enquirer is env deavorinjr telceive their own deli cato po:iitior the question. FAILED IyAW'S HEQl'inEMENTS. As lissjeen stated, the stato statutes rijirca tho delinquent tax notice tr published ON OR BEFOREIE BE-FOREIE FIRST MONDAY IN DJEMBEU (Sen. 2G30). This islv. Tho statute must be observi in this caFe just tis minute-1 ly ns ii caso of tinibito notice, a sesfinciHr any other kind. The statute'-lers in case the taxes are nol cettll before the third Monday in DcceAr the real property on on whicliucli taxes are a lein will be sold, ccording to tho law the people ar) given fourteen days uo-tice uo-tice befnrtsale. Iiistcn4f giving the people the proper tiee, the Enbuircr published pub-lished tlj list four full days late. I Publicafln Hhonld have been uvh on MontV the 7th. Tho list did not apprf until December 11 tb. Tiie pior appe-irol nder tlH dato of DcLmber &. Tho order of publication signed by the county troisurer ws dated December 7'I-This 7'I-This is snjHed to be siuned two days ufter tn injier. went to pres?. Can it be jhat tne Encpiirer has beeu iniyWing the people in this regard? M the inquirer deliberately deliber-ately lie? ) -The E tiran theory is unreia-onih!n unreia-onih!n :nd p,)n?. Acoording to the argument hold by that piper, the deliuquojt tax list could be do-laved do-laved until Iter the thin! Monday 1 i'i December, then published node- folse dutn linn and still be legal. Cull it bo that the Enquirer is so devoid of common sense nnd reas-auible reas-auible jiulirmnnt to believe that this would be Wnl and in hcoonI-uni'o hcoonI-uni'o with tho laws of the state? There are none sn blind as tlx se who will not see. It has been stated that h petition will be file! in court asking for a restraining order to be issued that the count v ccnuniFS'oners investi- i ! gale tho nn t t o r before tlm printing is paid for. If this is donp, It ia evident from n legal point of view that the delayed notice will be doolared void and the Enquirer will not be paid for the inefficient work. |