Jasper County Democrat, Volume 5, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 November 1902 — “OMITTED” TAXES. [ARTICLE]

“OMITTED” TAXES.

The Democrat promised its readers last week to discuss one or two “cases” adjusted by Workman, the tax-ferret, in this county, and true to that promise will take up a “case” in which the parties against whom the alleged omitted taxes were fonnd paid into the county treasury $342.60, rather than go through the trouble, worry and expense of a lawsuit in resisting Workman’s claim. In this particular case Mr. Workman entered of record and gave the party who paid this “tax” a statement of which we publish below all the essential features, omitting ing the name of the victim. “This is to certify that I have had under my consideration and examination the ——, of Rensselaer, Indiana, and have made a careful examination of the records and papers of said and the records and papers of the county, in the matter of listing and assessment of personal property, moneys and credits, and find the following to be the result of the said investigation: That the evidence shows an honest in-

tent to list all of said property for said years, but that the assessor erred AND VIOLATED THE LAW AND DISOBEYED THE AGREEMENT WITH OTHER ASSESSORS AS TO THE PER CENT. DEDUCTED FROM SAID SECURITIES; THAT THERE WAS SECURITIES REGARDED AT THE TIME, AS BEING BAD, OR INSOLVENT PAPER THAT AFTERWARD THERE WAS A PART OF IT RECEIVED; that the sheriff’s sales, judgments and executions, were continued to be treated as “notes” and said notes so kept in “bills receivable.” I therefore find that tor some years the assessments and the amount listed for taxation by said was for a larger amount than stfould have been assessed and equaling the sum of $121.46 upon the years 1890, 1891, 1892,1893,1894 and 1899. That the omission and taxes thereon for the years 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, was the sum of $464.06. Which first amount deducted from the second item, leaves $342.60, and upon the payment of the amount to the county treasurer a receipt shall be given for payment in full of all obligations against said for the period covered by the said investigation, from 1883 to 1899, inclusive. Witness my hand, this 14th day of February, 1902. J. B. Workman.” The capitals in the above are ours, note the sentences therein carefully. It will be seen that the tax-ferret claims that the assessor erred in allowing a larger discount from the notes than that allowed by law, and that Borne of the securities at the time considered 1 worthless were afterward partly realized upon. For these causes THE “FERRET” GOES BACK AND re-assesses Mr. Blank. Now Blank is a democrat and the assessor all these years was a republican, and it is not to be supposed that the assessor allowed Blank any greater discount on his notes and securities than he did his re-

publican friends, and yet we haven’t heard of any of the republican friends of the “assessor who erred” having been called upon to submit to a re-assessment by Tax-Ferret Workman, unless it be Judge Thompson, and the reason he was marked as a victim is too plain to waste words over. Well, Mr. Blank rather than stand a lawsuit and be bothered with the matter and being ignorant to some extent of the law, paid $352.60 into the county treasury, and the county, after paying Workman $170.30 had to go down and dig up about SIOO to pay the state and the city of Rensselaer the amounts due them from the "adjustment.” The point The Democrat desires to make is this, and any lawyer of ordinary ability will tell you we are correct: After the township assessor had seen these notes and securities, placed a value on them, threw some out or placed a low value on them because they were considered worthless, and the assessment sheet had passed through the hands of the county board of review and been “O. K’d,” there is no power in Indiana that can go back and reassess thosejnotes and securities! And yet, if Workman’s statement is correct, that ia exactly what he did in this case, and Mr. Blank was “held .up” for $342,60! Further comment on the merits of “Honest Abe’s” tax investigation i& unnecessary.