The Shasta courier., 1866-10-27
Important Questions Relative to Payment
OF Income Tax In Currency.

OF Income Tax In Currency.
1t will be remembered that suit was re-
Gently brought against the Collector Of In
ternal Revenue by the Pacific Insurance
Company, to recover the sum of 81 $50, al
legged excess of income tax paid by them
through the Collector having made them pay
the difference on their income between green
backs and gold. The case was brought in
the United States Circuit Court, and was
sent for decision to the Supreme Court of
the United States, Judges Hoffman and
Field having, in the statement of the case,
put the following important questions:
First-Whether that portion of the ninth
section of the Act of Congress, approved
July 18th, 1866, entitled - An Act to re-
duce Internal taxation, and to amend an
Act entitled an Act to provide Internal
Revenue to support the Government, to pay
Interest on the Public Debt, and for other
purposes. approved June Both, 1866, and
Acts amendatory thereof, which provides as
follows, to wit:
THAT it shall be the duty of all persons
required to make returns, or lists of income,
and articles or objects charged with an iD
ternal revenue tax, to declare in such re
turns or lists whether the several rates and
amounts therein contained are stated ac-
cording to their values in legal currency, or
according to their value in coined money
and in case of neglect or refusal so to de
clare to the satisfaction of the assistant
assessor receiving such returns or lists, such
assistant assessor is hereby required to make
returns or lists for such persons SO neglect
ing or refusing to make the returns or lists
required by the acts aforesaid and to assess
the duty therein, and to add thereto the
amount of penalties imposed by law in ca
ses Of such neglect or refusal. And when
ever the rates and amounts contained in the
returns or lists as aforesaid, shall be stated
in coined money, it shall be the duty of each
assessor receiving the same to reduce such
rates and amounts to their equivalents in
legal tender currency, according to the value
of such coined money in said currency for
the time covered by said returns. And the
lists required by law to be furnished to
collectors by assessors shall in all cases con.
tain the several amounts of taxes or duties
assessed, estimated or valued on legal tender
currency only" is to be construed as mere
ly providing rule as TO the currency in
which accounts, returns and lists are to be
stated, with a view to uniformity in keep.
ing the accounts of Internal Revenue, or
whether it is to be construed as denying to a
person who has received, in coined money,
income or other moneys, subject to tax or
duty, the right to return the amount there
of in the currency in which it was actually
received, and to pay the tax or duty thereon
in legal tender currency, and be construed
to require that the difference between coin
ed money and legal tender currency shall be
added to his return when made in coined
money, and that he shall pay the tax or
duty upon the amount thus increased?
2. Whether there does not exist between
the Government of the United States and
the holders of notes of the United States
issued under authority of the act of Congress
approved Feb. 25th 1862, entitled An Act
to authorize the issue of United States
notes, and for funding the floating debt of
the United States" a contract that said
notes shall be receivable, dollar for dollar.
as the equivalent of coined money, in pay
ment of duties or taxes Of those collected
from the plaintiff in this case?
3. Whether the portion above referred to
of the ninth section of said act of Congress-
approved July 18th 1866, if it be construed
as making IA distinction between coined
money and United States notes issued under
authority of the Act of Feb 25th 1862,
above referred to, and as requiring the
plaintiff to pay duty for its receipts in coin
ed money upon larger sum than that
actua.l .ly received, IS not an act ;mpairing
the obligation of contract between the
United States and the holder of such note?
4. Whether Congress possesses the power
to destroy, or repudiate. or impair the obli
IL. Al. !
States and the plaintiff as the holder of such
notes?
5. Whether the United States notes is
sued under authority of said Act of Con-
gress of July 25th. 1862, and held by the
plaintiff, are not private property within
the meaning Of the Fifth Article of the
Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States. proposed Sept. 25:h. 1889
and ratified December 18th, l79l,) and
whether the said portion above referred to
of the 9th Sec'i,'nuf the Act of Congress of
July 18th, 1876. if construed as making a
distinction between coined money and legal
currency in respect to the payment of such
duties as are referred to in this case, and
construed as requiring the difference in the
market value between coined money and
legal tender currency to be added to the
amounts stated in the returns made by the
plaintiff, and requiring the plaintiff to pay
the duty on such increased amount, would
not be the taking of private property for
public use without just compensation, and
whether said Act would not in its applica-
to the present case, be Unconstitutional and
void?
6. Whether the taxes paid by the plaintiff,
and sought to be recovered back in this
action. are not direct taxes within the mean
ing of the Constitution of the United States
7. Whether the amount to be raised by
such taxes is not required by the Constitu
ton of the United States to be apportioned
among the several States, and whether the
Acts of Congress above referred to, by which
said taxes are levied and authorized to be
collected without any such appointment but
according to the rules of uniformity, are not
contrary to the Constitution of the United
States
On each of these questions the opinions of
the judges were opposed.
Whereupon, on a motion of the plaintiff,
by his counsel, that the points in which dis
agreement has happened may, during the
term, be stated under the direction Of the
judges, and certified under the seal of the
Court to the Supreme Court, to be finally de.
cided.
1t is ordered that the foregoing state of