More About The Tax Titles

In an article in our issue of last Friday we mentioned saveral instances where the rankest kind of tice liad resulted from the application of the recent decisión of the supreme court relative to the securing of tax title deeds. Since that article was written a new turn has been given to the cited Muskegon case by the action of Auditjr General Turner. It seems that some days ago, James Snow, guardián of young Foegen, who was supposed to have lost a business block in Muskegon worth $13,000 by the failure of his guardián to pay taxes on the property to the amount of $200, wrote Book-keeper Morris, of the auditor general's office, asking him to ascertain the amount of taxes due on the property. Morris reported and avvaited the coming of the money to redeem the property. On the following morning the money arrived, but when it was tendered, Morris was infornied that Mrs. Haase's application had been filed before Snow's. Now it transpiras that Mr-. Haase, who lives in Lansing, has a son in the auditor general's office, and that it was he who had figured up the interest due the state on the unpaid taxes, and it is suspected that he gave his mother the tip that the property was subject to sale. There is a law of some years' standing which prohibits persons in the auditor general's office, who of course have superior opportunities for getfing information ábout property liable to sale for taxes, frorn buying tax titles. On account of this law and the suspicion that young Haase is really responsible for his mother's action in buying the state's interest in the property, the auditor general has declíned to issue a deed to Mrs. Haase until he has thoroughly investigated the casé. If he rinds that young Haase did really convey the information to his mother, Mr. Turner declares he will not issue the deed at all and Mrs. Hasse will then be compelled to go to the supreme court for relief. We belief the position of the auditorgeneral in this matter is well taken, and we hope the property may be saved to its rightful owner. Another case, quite as outrageous, has just come under our observation. Charles Foster, of Charlotte, owns two lots, on block 31 of that city. In 1S88 the city built a sidewalk in front of one of the lots, costing $8 or $9, which tax Foster refused to pay. A few days ago Mr. Foster received a letter from ex-Auditor-Gen. Stone, of Lansing, informing him that he (Stone), had purchased a title to these lots from the State of Michigan and enquiring what he (Foster), intended to doaboutit. Several times the property has been put up for sale, but there being no bidders it was returned as unsold. Stone is understood to have paid about #20 for this property, which is said to be worth $7,000 or S8,ooo. It is needless to say that Foster is greatly wrought up over the matter. Who would not be ? Such are a few sample cases of the practical workings of this infamous law.