Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-06-23

difficulties, law suits, rows, riots, and some
times revolutions and our new Internal
Revenue law is not an exception to the rule
so far as the difficulties, law suits and rows
are concerned. Such laws are unavoidably
oppressive and odious, and to be at all toler-
able they must be justly, fairly and lenient-
ly administered.
Several weeks ago we had occasion to
notice difficulty between Assistant u.
5. Assessor Field and DR.. A. G. DOren, Su-
perintendent of the State Idiotic Asylum,
growing out OF the assessment Of the In
come Tax. The case was tried in the Police
Court, and the evidence there elected showed
that DR.. Doren made his usual retTrn of in
come to the Assistant Assessor Field-a
gentleman who seems to have been APP
pointed for the purpose of making the law
more odious than it is, by his insolent and
oppressive administration of it. The re-
turn did not suit Mr.. Field-few returns do
and he objected to it because the Doctor
failed to return his board as income. All
officers Of State Asylums are considered
members of the State household, and
board at the institutions with which
they are connected as q matter of
course. DIR. ID. said he eneNerthought of max
ing such return, but Field could add it to
his return if he chose, as he had done the
year before. Field illustrated his position
by saying that he gave his son the rent Of
house free, bat returned the sum with his
income, just as If it had been paid. The
Doctor inquired whether he also taxed his
son for the rent thus given as part of his
sons income9 To this pertinent inquiry
Field responded by flying into terrific
passion-a very common thing with him
and he showered a torrent of oaths and
filthy epithets upon the Doctor, who is q
gentleman, and as such did not wish to get
into a street fghtwith an old man. Field
persisted In his abuse and finally struck the
Doctor, who then tumblcd the old gentle
man over and spanked him mildly, demand
ing an apology. Fields son, also collect
or, appeared, pitched in and struck the Doc
tor, when outsiders interfered and put an
end to the melee. Field and son pleaded
guilty to the charge of assault and were
fined by the Mayor, as they alone were to
blame, and the Doctor was discharged hon
orably.
This ended the matter, as it was suppos-
ed, forever; but Field was not satisfied. A
few days ago he had the astonished Doctor
arrested upon United States warrant for
making false return. The affidavit was
prepared by U. S. Commissioner Chitten-
den, and signed by Isaac II. Barritt, Dis
trict Assessor, and charged Doren, under
the 9th section Of the Revenue Law, with
making false return of his income, an Of
tense for which the section provides that
upon indictment and conviction in the Dis
trict Court, the party shall be fined not
more than $500. ...
The case came before the Commissioner
yesterday for examination, II. G. Noble,
Esq, appearing on behalf of the defendant.
He said that he intended making a motion |
for a continuance of the case on account of |
the unexpected and unavoidable absence of
an important witness; but before doing so
he would briefly call the attention of the |
Commissioner to some preliminary points |
of the law, showing that the affidavit was
informal, and why the whole case should |
be dismissed. He then proceeded in bril-
liant and logical argument to show that the
law quoted did not authorize the prosecu-
ton; that the section referred to returns of
personal property and MOTTO incomes, and
that the prosecution was misconception
of helaw; that the punishment for false
return OF income was by prosecution for
perjury, and not BY fine; that the law no
where contemplated such prosecution as
this, which seemed to be mixture of sew
eral provisions of different laws; and final
ly that all prosecutions under the law
must be commenced by the Collector
and not the Assessor. We only give such
points as we can now recall, and they con-
vey very imperfect impression of the
complete riddling which the case received.
Mr.. Noble also referred to the fact that the
Collector was responsible for any oppres-
sion which might be inflicted in the col
lection of the taxes, and that he was liable
to be fined $500 therefor. His client had no
fears of the result Of trial of the merits
of the case, because the testimony would
show the real character of the prosecution;
but before Undertaking an expensive action
in the U. S. District Court, he would like to
have the Commissioner decide some of the
preliminary points to which his attention
had been called.
The Commissioner stated that the points
were important and worthy of the greatest
consideration; and that he would reserve
his decision for ten days until he could con-
suit with the U. S. District Attorney.
So the case terminated for the present.
We do not see why the provision of the law
quoted by Mr.. Noble in reference to the
responsibility ofthe Collector foroppression
in the administration of the tax law, does
not as well apply to Assessors and Assistant
Assessors; and If so, the case will be a pretty
serious business for the gentleman who, in
the exercise Of more "insolence of office"
than Hamlet ever dreamed Of is supposed
to be the instigator Of this action. At all
events, that peevish old gentleman doubt
less left the Commissioners office yester-
s-L- NJ IL