THE ALLIANCE -INDEPENDENT.
9
T
V
ARB LAW BREAKERS.
State Offioers Elected to Enforce Law,
Engage in a Gross Violation of
Law How They "Protect the
Interests of the State."
VALLEY OOTOTI TAXPAYEES INDIGNANT.
A Secret Compromise By Which $1,247
of State Taxes Were Given Away
to Republican Politicians
Why It Was Done.
Here Is the Story.
Indignation runs high amongst the
good people of Valley county.
They feel that they have been shame
fully treated by three of the state offi
cers at Lincoln.
They did their duty to the state
under trying circumstances, and they
do not like to see the results of their
patriotic action trifled away in direct
violation of law by state officers elected
to enforce the law.
Hear their case, and judge whether
they have a right to be indignant. The
following account is condensed from
the Ord Journal:
A few years ago one A. D. Robinson
a republican, was elected to the office
of county treasurer of Valley county.
During his term he was found to be a
defaulter to the tune of more than $4,
000 taxes due the state.
Mr. E. J. Clements county attorney,
was ordered by the county board to be
gin an action for the recovery of the
stolen5 money, District Judge Tiffany
heard the case. Robinson by his attor
ney filed a demurrer which Judge Tiff
any sustained. Thus, Valley county
was thrown out of court with the costs
to pay. Mr. Clements however, took
the case to the suprema cuurt, upon
hearing of which, the case was ordered
for trial a second time in Valley county,
Attorney General Leese having a hand
in the case at that time. Attorney
Clements by this time was supplanted
by Chas. A. Munn, an independent.
The case came into court and after a
hard tussle Mr. Munn with Mr. Clem
ents voluntarily assisting, obtained
judgment for $4633 50 against the said
A. D. Robinson on his bond. Bear in
mind the bond of Mr. Robinson was
signed by some of the strongest men in
Valley county, such as Fred L. Harris,
John Beauchamp, W. D. Ogden, J. B.
Miller, W. 3. Waters. A. M. Finley,
Waterman, and many others, who are
good for twenty times that amount.
Fred Li Harris is one of the Ord bank
ers and. a heavy gaain dealer in the
oity of Lincoln, and worth more than
a hundred thousand dollars. .
Immediately after obtaining judg
ment as above stated, the attorney of
Valley county wrote:
Ord, Neb., April, 4, 1892.
Hon'. Geo. H. Hastings,
Dear Sir: In the case of A. D.
Robinson and bondsmen, I secured
judgment on behalf cf plaintiff, on
April 1st, for $4633.50 in favor of the
State of Nebraska. Judgment will
draw interest at ten per cent from that
date. Yours Truly,
Citas. A. Munn.
The same notice under the same date
was sent to the State Treasurer, John
E. Hill.
Soon after the judgment was rendered
the report became current that the
law firm of Robbins & Babcock of Ord
had effected
A COMPROMISE
between the bondsmen and the State
Treasurer. This report became more
and more current, and that Hon. G. H.
Hastings, our Attorney General was a
party to the compromise, which our
people look upon as a steal, the judg
ment being as good as gold.
Upon hearing this report, County
attorney Munn wrote on May 6, to
Hastings stating the case and asking
to be informed as to the truth of the
matter. Mr. Hastings' deputy wrote
that the Attorney General was absent,
but would attend to the matter soon.
, A month elapsed and Mr. Munn heard
nothing more. Meanwhile, the interest
ed parties concealed the true situation
from the county attorney, although on
the sly they secured an entry on the
district court records to the effect that
the judgment had been 'satisfied.
Finally attorney Munn wrote the
following indignant letter:
Ord, Neb., June 9, 1892.
Hon. Geo. H. Hastings,
Lincoln, Nebr.,
Dear Sir: You will remember that
at our last term of the district court,
of this county, I obtained a judgment
in the case of Valley county vs. A. D
Robinson et. al. for the sum of $4633.50.
On the 12th, day of May as I now learn
this judgment was released by the
Clerk on a satisfaction executed by the
Auditor and State Treasurer. I was in
no way informed of this settlement, or
the satisfaction of the judgment until
I accidentally learned the fact from
one of the bondsmen, against whom
judgment was rendered. I am inform
ed that this judgment was compromised
for $1800.00 or for less than forty per
cent of the amount. I wish you would
look into the matter and inform me.
The judgment was absolutely good. In
fact it was a lien on real estate enough
to satisfy six such judgments in full.
It seems to me that this has been an
unusual proceeding, to settle and dis
miss a judgment obtained by a county
attorney without giving him the slight
est notice. It is at least discourteous
and indicates a desire to make an un
lawful settlement. This is especially
true in this case which has been in
court some time and attracted consider
able public notice. If it is true then it
would seem to be unlawful and fraudul
ently made, and the tax-payers not only
of this county but of tne state, have
just cause for complaint, and the officers
making such a settlemant should be
held responsible on their official bond
for the balance. As I said before this
judgment was absolutely good and col
lectable. Let me hear from you.
Yours Truly, Chas. A. Munn.
This letter brought forth the follow
ing reply:
Lincoln, Neb., June 14, 1892.
Chas. A. Munn, Esq., Ord, Neb.
Dear Sir: Replying to yours of the
9th Inst , permit me to say that I have
examined the records of the office of
the auditor, and find that in the case
you name judgment was rendered
April 4th, 1892, for $4,633.56, and that
on the 12th of May, 1892, t he auditor
and treasurer under the statutes made a
settlement of the judgment for $3,356.28.
I find that the judgment was for the
interest and the principal.
Yours truly,
Geo. H. Hastings,
Attorney General.
There is certainly just
CAUSE FOR INDIGNATION
On the part of taxpayers of Valley
county and the whole state as well.
The editor of The Alliance-Independent
has investigated this matter
and can vouch for the substantial cor
rectness of the facts recited by tho
Ord Journal. They accord exactly
with the facts shown by the records at
the state house. ,
Robinson had failed to pay over to
the state treasurer state taxes to the
amount of $4,196 20 as shown by the
records in tho auditor's office. This
sum had been drawing interest at 10
per cent, till principal and interest
amounted to $4,633.56. In cases of this
kind tho statutes make it the duty of
the auditor immediately "to commence
suit against tho county treasurer and
his sureties and take all such proceed
ings as may bo necessary to protect the
interests of the state ' Instead of doing
this, it appears that Auditor Benton
left Valley county to shoulder the
trouble and expense of a long and
sevens legal struggle to secure tho
payment of the taxes due the stattf.
Then after the struggle was over, tho
victory won, judgment entered, and
nothing was left lo bo dono but to
collect the money from the bondsmen
who were well ablo to pay twenty
times the amount, Auditor Benton,
Treasurer Hill, and Attorney General
Hastings suddenly stepped in and
made a private settlement for $3,356 28
or $1,277.28 less than judgment had
been entered for. This is the way the
state officers "protect tho interests of
the state."
And the only explanation offered by
Mr. Hastings is that "the auditor and
treasurer, under the statutes made a
settlement."
The statute referred to read as followss:
Tho auditor, state treasurer and at
torney general, shall form a board, and
as such are hereby authorized and em
powered to make all settlements for
moneys due the state from any county
treasurer or his bondsmen against
whom judgment has been rendered in
any court of this state, in such manner
as in their judgment shall be to the
best interests of the state. Compiled
statutes of 1891, Sec. 4,284.
It should be observed that this statute
only grants power to this board so far
as the manner of settlement is concern
ed. It grants no authority to compro
mise, or remit any amount due. The
legislature has no power to authorize
any board ts do such a thing as will be
seen from the following article:
The legislrture shall have no power
to release or discharge any county, city
township, town or district whatever, or
the inhabitants thereof, or any corpo
ration, or the property therein, from
their or its proportionate share of
taxes to be levied for state purpose, or
due any municipal corporation, nor
shall commutation for such taxes
BE AUTHORIZED IN ANY FORM. (Art.
IX, Sec. 4, Const of Nebr.)
Whatever settlement this board is
empowered to make must of course be
in accord with all other statutes.
Now let us go a little further and see
WHAT THE STATUTES REQUIRE.
Attorney General Hastings seems
sadly in need of instructions: Section
4071 Revised statutes of 1891 says that
the bondsmen of a county treasurer are
responsible for "all taxes" that may be
collected by him.
Section 4072 requires the auditor to
sue the county treasurer andhis bonds
men., whenever state taxes are not
promptly turned over.
Sestion 4073 prescribes the manner
of prosecution etc., and says: "The
court may upon hearing, give judgment
for such sum or sums of money as such
officer or person is liable in law to pay.
Section 4066 requires any county
treasurer who fails to pay over state
taxes at the proper time to pay ten per
cent interest on the amount due till it
is finally paid. The law says: "In no
ease shall the auditor be permitted to re
mit such interest, unless satisfactory
evidence is presented to him, showing,
by official action taken by the county
board lawful cause why the collector
could not pay over the amount due on
such treasurer's account with tho state."
Nowhere In the statutes is there a
single line or a word authorizing any
state officer to make any compromlso
with any , defaulting troasuror or hii
bondsmen. On the contrary, no such
compromiso can be mado without violat
ing the law and constitution of the stale.
If these facts are known to Attorney
General Hastings, he is a deliberate
law breaker. If they are not known to
him, he should resign at once as a man
too grossly ignorant to fill such an office.'
The facta then are these: After
Valley county officials, with great ex
ponso and trouble, had secured a judg
ment for. $4633.50 duo tho state, the
officers of state without warrant of law,
and in direct violation of law, secretly
compromised with the bondsmen of tho
defaulting treasurer for $3356.28, giving
the bondsmen $1277.28 of the state's
money.
Now let us inquire what may haro
been ' '
, THE MOTIVE
For such an outrageous abuse of powsr
by the , men who took a solemn oath to
support the constitution and laws of
the stato.
The people of Valley county freely
express the opinion that the state
officers have pocketed a considerable
sum of money somewhere in tho deal.
But a much more plausible theory and
one which the people of tho stat aro
much more likely to accept, is that
this compromise was mado to secure
political influence in favor of the re-nom
ination of the present slate officers.
This compromiso was made last
spring when several members of the
the present stato house ring were very
anxious for a re-nomination, particu
larly Hastings, and Deputy Auditor
Bowerman, Benton's brother-in-law,
who was slated as Benton's successor.
Several prominent republican poli
ticians of Valley county," "old-tlmo ma
chine men" as Ed. Roggen would say,'
had a finger in the pie. Among them
were narris, the banker and grain
dealer, Lawyers Robbins and Babcock,
and ex-Judge Coffin. How easy it
would be for these men to say: "Make
this omproinise and Valley county
shall be solid for the nomination of
certain men."
Probably no direct evidence on this
point is obtainable. But there is
strong . presumption in favor of the
correctness of this view. There is o
other reasonable explanation.
If this is the true theory, these men.
are unworthy the confidence or respect
of a single voter in the state. They
have used the state's money to pur
chase political support. They might
just as well have taken tho cash from
the vault,' and used it to purchase a
nomination.
Unless these men come speedily to
the front with an explanation of this
outrageous deal, the people of Nebraska
will be fully justified in believing this
most plausible explanation of their
conduct.
A 00BRE0TI0N.
Our thanks are due to that staunch
independent of Gage, county, Dan Al
then, for calling attention to an er
ror in the editorial ''A Full Vote and a
Fair Count" which appeared in our
last issue. It was there 6tated that the
names of the thirty-. two' presidential
electors nominated by the four parties
in this stato would be arranged in al
alphabetical order. The statement Is
incorrect. The law contains an excep
tion, which had escaped our notice,
providing that the eight electors nam
ed by each party shall be grouped to
gether. This will be a great conveni
ence to voters, and a safeguard against
mistakes in marking. -