_I hc Frontier.
VOLUME XXII. O’NEILL. HOLT COUNTY. NEBRASKA. OCTOBER 10, 1901. NUMBER 15.
1 Investigations In Sheriffs Office Divulge More Corruption-Sale Book Is “Private" I
APPRAISER FEE ROBBERY
The Frontier of last week entered more or less exhaustively into
the subject of tax foreclosures that are being conducted by popu
list officers in collusion with the gang of land pirates of this city.
In order to get the necessary data for this article, of couase it be
came necessary to consult the public records in the various offices.
As the sales are all made by the sheriff, one of the records necessary
to consult was the Sheriff Sale Book which is kept in the sheriff’s
office.
k At the commencement of our investigation of the workings of the
land syndicate we had no thought of “experting” or making any
particular investigation of our county officers in connection with
the foreclosure business. Miss Ivittie Bright of this city was
employed to look up the record information concernining the tax
foreclosures and when she called at the sheriff’s office on Thursday
afternoon, September 26, and asked to see the Sheriff’s Sale Book
she was very courteously shown the same by the clerk, Miss Sulli
van. Miss Bright spent that afternoon copying from the record
the sales that had been made in which Holt county was plaintiff.
Unable to complete the work Thursduy afternoon Miss Bright re
turned to the sheriff’s office the following morning and was engaged
in copying from the Sheriff’s Sale Book when Sheriff Stewart en
tered and said to Miss Bright:
“The book is not for public use. ”
Miss Bright could not realize that by this he intended to refuse
her the inspection of the book and she continued copying from it.
Sheriff Stewart left the room but soon returned, and this time
made his objection to an inspection of the book a little clearer and
more forceful, saying:
■7 would rather you would not use it; it is a PRIVATE book.”
At this Miss Bright quit her work and reported that she had
{ been refused by Sheriff Stewart the further use of the book. This
book, which the sheriff sought to claim as “private,” was bought
by the county and Sheriff Stewart received it from his predecessor
f. in office. It is needless to say that the sheriff was called upon by
a gentleman who demanded to know why he refused the inspection
of public records. In explanation Sheriff Stewart said:
“It is a private record, and while he had no objection to its
being used, ‘they’ (meaning no doubt the members of the corrupt
gang of land pirates that is in this deal up to the eyebrows) had
told him not to allow the record to be used.”
gg The sheriff was soon convinced that the best thing for him to do
jHH was not to refuse the inspection of a public record, and he accord
§Hsj ingly very reluctantly consented to the further copying from the
ggl record. This action on the part of Sheriff Stewart naturally
aroused our suspicion as to whether or not the business of his office
was being conducted as it should be and we accordingly have made
I a slight investigation of the methods in vogue in his offiec. Our
investigation so far has been more or less superficial but sufficient
-. has developed that we are simply dazed at the high handed
corruption that lurks behind the mask of reform. Lack of space
jjjgj forbids us giving an itemized list of the irregularities found, and
gg] f°r ^e PurPose °f this article we will refer but to a few, although
Hip there are hundreds of them that can be cited.
In sheriff’s fees charged up in foreclosure cases the two items in
j3E which most irregularities appear is that of mileage and appraisers’
fees charged.
H'-‘ Section 6079, on page 1280, of 1899 revised statutes of Nebraska,
. provides:
“1Vhenever, hereafter, execution shall be levied on any lands,
EE the officer levying the same shall call an inquest of two DISIN
llpl TERESTED free holders and administer to them, on oath, impar
RE—> tially to appraise the interest of the person or persons against
whom the execution iq levied, in the property so levied upon, and
such officer, together with said freeholders, shall appraise said
E|j! interest at its REAL VALUE IN MONEY.”
lip] Section 6103, page 1285, 1899 statutes further provides:
I “Each freeholder summoned to appraise real estate under the
provisions of this chapter shall be allowed and receive the sum
of FIFTY CENTS FOR EACH DAY HE MAY BE SO ENGAGED AS
BSUCH APPRAISER.”
The statute further provides that the sheriff Bhall be entitled to
Hfive cents per mile for each mile actually traveled in making the
appraiBment. The flagrant disregard of the plain provisions of
law is shown in the sheriff’s statements of costs in the following
■cases:
Case No. 5234, County of Holt vs. Coveil for NEJ 6-28-9, the
sheriff’s charges for appraisers’ fees are #12. (This is the land
referred to in The Frontier last week which was bought by M. F.
Lspl Harrington for #312 and, as the deed shows, sold it sixty-seven
days later for #2,400, but Mr. Harrington claims in a statement in
the Independent that he received $800.)
jjijjjjj Case No. 5264 for NWJ 27-31-15, the sheriff charges and re
Hceives as “appraiser’s fees” #12.
Another interesting feature of the manipulations of the land
syndicate and the “disinterested” appraisers selected by the sheriff
Eis shown in the following cases in which E. S. Eves is plaintiff.
Here are a few of the cases showing the numbers of land, amount
of tax involved, appraised valuation of laud and amount 'sold for
where sales have been made:
Number land. Appraised val. Amt. Bold for. Tax Involved. Name purc’r
SB1* 28-80-9.*1(10 00.*107 00.#80 17.M. 11. McCarthy
S'/i NBJt 28, SV4 NW«
30-9. 1(10 00. 108 00 29 10.M. II. McCarthy
SWk >8-30-9. 1(10 (Hi. 107 09. 12 25.M. 11. McCarthy
N'4NJ4 15-80-9. 1(10 00... 13 12..
SB* 3-30-9. 1(H) (Hi... 13 12..
NEW 85-39-9. 1«0 (10.... (11) 12..
NK'i 32-25-12. 160 00... 48 45..
8EJ4 32-30-9. 160 00... 18 26..
SE‘4 4-30-9. ltill 00... 18 01..
NWft 33-30-11. 100 00... 15 60..——
W’4 NWJ4 4-28-11. 100 00... 4 90....
NR‘i 28-25-10. 100 01)... 11 45..
E14 NE!i 15-28-11. 80 09... 5 66..
It may be interesting to our readers to note the fact that in
every instance where any of these tracts have been sold at these
“public” sales, M. H. McCarthy has been the purchaser. In every
one of the cases above referred to J. S. Harrington has been select
ed by the sheriff as one of the “disinterested freeholders to
appraise the land AT ITS REAL VALUE IN MONEY” as pro
vided by the statute. In the first three cases ^bove mentioned the
lands were all appraised on May 28, 1901, and in EACH CASE
the sheriff charges $3 appraisers’ fees, (J. S. Harrington being one
of the appraisers and his partner, M. H. McCarthy, buying the
land,) and mileage for the distance from O’Neill and return to
each piece of land. In the last ten cases mentioned above, ns
shown by the record the appraisments were ALL made on Sept.
2, 1901, and J. S. Harrington being one of the appraisers in each
instance, and the sheriff charges are $8 for appraiser’s fees in each
case. According to this Mr. Harrington received $15 for his days
work on Sept 2, acting as a “disinterested” appraiser of laud sold
to his partner McCarthy. Nothwithstanding the law is very plain,
that the appraisers should receive 50 cents each PER DAY, here
is an instance where the sheriff has charged $15 for the work of
one appraiser in one day. Out of the hundreds of cases that we
have examined we have found no case in which the appraisers’ fee
charged by the sheriff are leas than $3 and from that as high
as $12. Legally, no more than $1 could be charged in ANY case
for appraisers’ fee. The statue is very plain, and this very question
has been passed upon by the supreme court of this state in an
action brought by the Phceuix Insurance Co. against ex-Sheriff
McEvony and his bondsmen of this county. In this case McEvony
had charged $3 appraisers’ fees in each of the ten cases in which
the insurance company had paid the costs, just as Sheriff Stewart
is now doing, only that Stewart is charging as high as $12 in some
cases. The insurance company obtained judgment against
McEvony and his bondsmen not only for the illegal fees collected
by McEvony but a PENALTY of $50 in EACH CASE as provided
for in>Sec. 34 of chapter 28 of the revised statutes, which provides
a penalty of this amount for any officer collecting illegal fees.
This decision can be found in the 72 Northwestern Reporter at
page 950. The court holds:
7—“The statute limits the mileage of a sheriff to fiue cents per
mile for each mile ACTUALLY and NECESSARILY traveled in
mahing a levy upon and appraisal of real estate.
2— “Freeholders summoned by sheriff to appraise real estate
levied on, are entitled to ONLY FII ’Y CENTS PER DAY, FOR
EACH DAY they are employed in such duty.
3— “Such appraisers are not entitled to mileage.”
In this case the court further says: “The sheriff charged $!5
fees for two appraisers, illegal fees collected 12.” Referring to
the lawful fees of 50 cents per day for appraisers the court has
this to say: “The legislature supposed that a sheriff, when he had
levied upon lands, would summon freeholders who reside in tho
vicinity of such lands to make the appraisal.” Instead of Sheriff
Stewart pursuing this course and permitting the farmers in the
vicinity of the land to make the legitimate appraisers’ fee, he
selects as the “disinterest” appraisers, members of the corrupt
gang of land pirates in this city,and charges for them from three to
twelve times more than the legal fee for appraising land they have
their own anxious eyes tixed upon.
It can be readily seen from the number of cases tiled on land
during Sheriff Stewart’s term that the illegal fees collected by him
must run into thousands. We venture the prediction at this time,
that now this corruption has been exposed, it will not be long
before Sheriff Stewait an«l his bondsmen will have some cases to
defend, and judgments and penalties to pay for the collections of
illegal fees.
Is it at all strange, Mr. Tax Payer, that what this investigation
has brought to light, that Sheriff Stewart should have tho temerity
to deny the inspection of a public record?
Is it not time, Mr. Tax Payer, for a change in tho office of sheriff
in this county ?
The election of W. H. Blackmor, who has been Mr. Stewart’s
deputy, means a continuation! of this high handed corruption.
Long continuation of any party in power, leads to corruption in
office and a change occasionally is conducive to official honesty.
In the light of this stupendous corruption, don’t you think,
Mr. Tax Payer, that this is a very opportune time for a change?
jA jA jA jA
Poor Women and Helpless
Girls Their Victims
The corrupt gang of land pirates continue to “make hay while
the sun shines” as they evidently see that their license to plunder
tho county and rob people of their property is fast drawing to a
close. We have just learned, from the records that they have been
at their damnable work of taking peoples’ property from them
without their knowledge or consent, no later than Monday of
this week.
On Oct. 7, 1901, E. S. Eves purchased at one of these “publio”
sales the following described laud at pricos named:
NJ NEi &N} NW.\ 15-30-9, price paid.$100 00
SE J 32- 30-9, price paid.:. 100 00
NEi 25^30-9, paice paid, . 100 00
He gets 480 acros of laud, last Monday, at one of these “public”
sales for $300, and out of this sum he gets returned to him $85 as
“printer’s foe,” so by this transaction he gets 480 acres of good
land CLEAR, at an actual cost to him of $221.
The defendant in any of these cases was not a rich non-resident
loau company owing largo sums of delinquent taxes of which you
see so much talk of in Mr. Eve’s paper. The owners of these
lands—beforo Eves took it away from them by this legalized
robbery—were individuals, two of them being women who may
have their all invested in these lands. As the records show, the
Ni NA 15-30-9, was owned by Minnie llinkel of New York, and
she owed $12.70 delinquent tax against tho land when Eves com
menced his action to get the land. The SEJ 32-30-9, was owned
by Martha W. lvinney, of Massachusetts, and she owed $17.00
delinquent tax when Eves and tho gang conceived the idea that
they had better take her land. The NE\ 35-30-9, by A. Z. Taylor
and lie owed $58.18, when tho gang decided his land should go.
Those cases are cited to disprove the claim of the corrupt gang
that they ure only attaching land of loau companies on which
there are large sums of delinquent tax. The facts are there is
very little of tho non-resident land of this county now owned by
loan companies. Out of all the loan companies that did basiness
in this county in the days of farm loans, there is but one but what
has become bankrupt and long since passed into the bands of a
receiver. The one exception is the Western Trust & Security Co.
of Fremont, und they invuriably keep the taxes on their lamds
paid up.
The mortgages made to the other companies have been sold to jKg
individuals living in all parts of the east and as a result they have gg
been compelled to take the lands on their mortgages. An investiga- ===
tion of the record will show that over 00 per cent of the non-resi- ggB
dent land of the county is owned by individuals and not by loan gg
compaines. The individuals owning this land are, in most cases, |||
not wealthy people, but people of small means who invested their qSS
savings in one or two of these farm loans with the loan company’s fjflQ?
guarantee of its payment. The failure of the loan companies of lS]g
course made their guarantee of no value and the individuals have
been compelled to take the land. |l|j
Many of the owners of this land are poor widow women, factory 3p=
girls, seamstreses, and in fact people in all walks of life who have 1®?
the savings of their life time invested in this land. It is no unoom
l5]g
moo thing for many of our readers to get a letter from some [-g*
woman in the east, telling a pitiful tale of her indigent circum
stauces and wanting to know if it is not possible to rent or realize
something out of the laud. It is with these unfortunate people the !
same as it sometimes is with citizens of this county when they rajg
find it impossible to raise the money with which to pay their taxes [S]ri
when they become delinquent. Others iday neglect to pay for a
year or two through the neglect of some agent whom they maythink I
is looking ufter the payment of their taxes. 9ES
While we do not pretend to say positively, it is reasonable to
suppose, that the two women above referred to belong to one thene j==j
unfortunate class. One cf these women owed delinquent tax for
but one year, 1800, amounting to £12.70, the other one owed for
two years, 1808-09, amounting to $17.06. They certainly could g-g
not be classed as “tax shirkers” as they have kept the taxes of ggjil
previous years paid. These unfortunate woman may have all they jjjgi
have in the world invested in these lands, and can any «*oe im- yrjgj
magine their feelings when they learn that their lands have been |f&||
taken from them without their knowledge, consent or consideration fSlsj
to them of one dollar, by this system of legalized robbery, because jpG=j
they have allowed one and two years taxes to become delinquent?
Mr. Tax payer, place yourself in the condition of these unfor- HH]
tuuate people. Suppose you were to romain from the state for a Sjj={ .
couple of years and in the mean time allowed the taxes on your !spl
laud to become delinquent, and on your return you find one of {===!
the land syndicate had robbed yon of your laud by this infamous rcL
system. What would be your feelings? The feelings of many ©g
men would be expressed by ucts and deeds rather than word?
The “public” sale of these lauds to Eves last Monday presents
this piteous spectacle: ggjg
Eves bringing action against this land for one and two years lS]g
taxes; M. F. Harrington acting as attorney for Eves; J. S. Harring- pH
ton one of the “disinterested” appraisers selected by the sheriff to
appraise the land; the sheriff charging up more than three times
the appraisers’ fees allowed by law, and the 480 acres of clear land (|p.
soli to Eves at an actual cost to him o! £221. J=j
Mr. Tax Payer, what do you think of this state of affairs?
You cannot put your linger on the acts of any of the above
“big four” in connection with the rotten deals without touching gng
the other three.
That this gang of laud pirates fear neither God nor man is
manifest by their wanton disregard for the truth and the |S][d
methods they resort lo ;n robbing people of their proparty. *
