Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 2, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 November 1858 — THE COURT HOUSE. [ARTICLE]

THE COURT HOUSE.

[For the Rennsselaer Gazette.

Mr. Editor: Sobie two months since an article appeared in the editorial columns of the Democratic Expositor of this place, in regard to the expenditures of the county on the Court House, which 1 think did injustice to the County Commissioners and to the contractor of that building. I wish to give a statement of the matters concfprning the issuing of orders, and the payment of them, 80 far as that building is concerned* On the 230th page of the Order Book I find that the Commissjonera ordered that as soon as the contract is closed, Benjamin Henkle shall receive an order for SSOO. On the 236th page I find an order authorizing the issue of an order for $3,000, which I find the Auditor issued in two orders—No. 5,954 for SI,OOO, and No. 5,955 for $2,000. This last order I find was returned and cancelled on May 23, 1855, and two others issued—Nos. 6,092 and 6,093, for the amount with the interest added. I find another issued on the Bth of June, 1855, being No. 6,234, for $3,000, which order was returned and cancelled, and the following orders, with the interest added, were from time to time issued, to-wit: March, 1856, No. 6,-158; May, 13, 1856, No. 6,649; June 11, 1856, No. 6,660; April 27, 1857, No. 6,733; and September 8, 1857, No. 6,777. The balance at that time remaining due was $323.47. On the 2d of February, 1856, the Auditor issued an order, No. 6,408, calling for $3,100, which was the balance due to Mr. Henkle. At the September Term, ■4856, (see Order Book, page 373.) the Commissioners agree to receive the Court House and release Mr. Henkle, as soon as he should do certain things, as set forth in a a schedule then filed, and return $216 of the orders he had seceived, which amount he did return, and it was taken out of the balance of order No. 6,234, and the order No. 6,777 was issued for the remainder, $107.47. On the order No. 6,408 a judgment was obtained in the Circuit Court of September, 1857, for the amount and interest then due. In January, 1858, I paid into the Clerk’s office s7ooj and Dr. Laßue, who was agent for those who held the order, by the order of the Commissioners, got the original cancelled and had two order issued—one for S7OO, which he left in the Clerk’s office when he lifted the money, and the other $2,772, the balance of the judgment not paid. r Thus you see that Benjamin Henkle never received but $9,600 in orders, and the bricks then on hand, valued at S9OO, $216 of which he surrendered at the time before referred to. There was an effort to make something out of allowing him£interest, but that he could have had at any time by presenting the order for payment to the Treasurer, who is bound to pay it or protest it after which it draws interest. In regard to what that article said about refunding tax to R. 11. Milroy, the facts are these: In January, 1855, the Auditor and Treasurer sold a very large amount f land for taxes. Upon the Ist of January, 18;57, all those lands that had been sold and not redeemed, the holder of the certificate had a right to demand n deed, and ttie Auditor was required to make him a deed, unless, as required by the Revised Statute of 1852, page 142, section 171, he shall discover, prior to the conveyance of the land sold for taxes, that the sale was for any cause whatever invalid, lie should not convey such lands, but the purchase-money, with interest thereon, shall be refunded out of the county treasury, &c. Now, the sale before spoken of consisted mostly of those lands that had not been five years entered, and which the Circuit Court of the United States had decided were not taxable. The Auditor, therefore, refused to giYe deeds, and the purchaser was entitled to draw back his money; and orders were from time to time issued accordingly to R. 11. Milroy tor Mr. Bowen, audio G. W. Spitler and W. S'. Hopkins, Esq., and quite a number of others who purchased at that sale. Those orders applie on all kinds of taxes, whether S ate, o.P county, or township, and each bore their proportional part ol them. So that the statements made in the article referred tp did not give a lair explanation oi.lhe Case

EZRA WRIGHT.