Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1867-02-26

or omit TO pay their contributions, and unless
the citizen shall fail to meet the demand, thus
made upon him, be should not be subjected to
the burdens imposed upon those who wl!fuily
omit their duty.
# citizen shall have committed 4 crime,
or if he has failed in his obligations TO the
government he is liable to the punishment IN
the mode prescribed in the law, for the parti-
cuIar ofenc. If, however, he shall pay MS
| taxes, within the period prescribed by law, ne
is as bameless as if he paid them, the instant
they were DUE and whatever may be ms GEM
ouencies 10 other respects, IN THIS he hat Eo'
| otf,ntsl. It sufficiently appears from the facts
in this case, that before the time prescribed,
for sale OF the property, Mr. AgneW rendered
| the full amount Of the tax, penalty, interest anu
costs to tho Commissioned They declined to
receive il. upon the pretence that he was
not the owner Ct the property, anu
proceeded to its sale. The Commissioners
| should have been we'll satisfied before thus de
| cIining to receive the amount, with which the
properly was charged by law, that they were
| justified by the letter and the spirit or the lax"
They should not by any mlsc0nstructioh Of II,
says Judge Wayne in Early vs.. Doe, 10 How.
Gl0, anticipate the time for sale, within winch
the owner Of the property may prevent sale
Of it, by paying the demand against HIM, and
the expenses Whiah may have been incurred
from his not having done % before This the law
always prcsuncs shat the owuer may do until
a sale has been made. He may arrest the
uplittcd hammer U! the auctlonccr when the
cry for sale is made If it be done before Joa0
/ file bid has been made. By what authority
Jd the Commissioners thus assume to decline
10 receive the charges upon the land W ere
they to determine who was the owner? Were
they Invested with full authority to pass upoh
the title TO all the real estate OF the country
If so, by what rules OF evidence were they 10
proceed, and Of what legal value were their ad-
Indications. We're they to he determined 10 their
judgments alone, by the assessments contained
;, in the land books Of the counties for the year
1860, and by this tcbt alone were they to sci
at heir pleasure the real estate Of the cItl2an
| apprehcn,l none will contend for such prop
ositon as this. How we're they TO know that NJ r.
AgUew may not have been the owner, Tor
aught that appears he may have been, or he
may have had such legal or equitable interest
in the property, as may have entitled him TO
redeem it, if sold, and 70 have justified him IN
paying the tax upon it before condemnation and
sale He was certainly in possession OF 1t; he
may have taken possession under color 0!
claim Of title, and such holding being adverse,
, his claim 10 The title was ripcnlng. Undel
j.. such circumstances was he not Unsuitable, II
, rendering the tax TO rescue 1t from sale. and
was he not entitled to pay the tax and effect
that end? In Dubois W. Hepburn, 10 Peters
a case arising under statute OF pennsylvania
which provides alter sale tor taxes. III tEt
owner or owners of land sold az aforesaid sLa!
make or cause to be made within t@0 years
an offer or tender of the tax he may, &c, he
Cont say that such laws are to be literally
construed. and not narrowed down by Stlct
Construction That any person having l"ga
f Or equitable interest in the land may redeem
Whatever may be the evidence of his title:
and ,hc Court further remark "a law auth0riZ
, iuy The red 1lnpt0u Of !aHd sold ought tC
receive a liberal and benign construction III
favor Of those whose estates sill bc otherwise
, divested, especially where the time allowed Is
short, an ample indemnify given to tile pur-
chaser, and penalty is imposed on the owner
The purchaser suffers no loss, he buys with the
full knowledge that this title cannot be absolute
;for some time if it is defeated, il reVers to the
, lawful proprelors 1t wouli therefore seem
not to he necessary for the purposes OF Justice
or Ia cfectuate the objects Of the law, that the
. right to redeem should be narrowed down fy
strict constructions In this case We are album
dainty satisfied that it COMFORTS with the word
and sp;vt Of tie law, to consider any person
= |
the owner thereof, for the purposes OF REDEEM 3
ton. any right which in law or equity amounts
to an ownership in the lands ANY right Q
entry npon it, 10 its possession or enjoyment OF
any part OF II, which can be deemed al
estate makcs the person the owner, SO lar u
it is necessary to give him the right to redeem.
In aid OF this view, and to aid in the con
sruction Of this statute, the universally admit
ted principle that the general system OF lcgis
la,ion upon til, subject matter may be taken
unto view, aud other statutes IN pGI1 HlHt1ld
whether repeaIed or unrepca!cd. may be con
s,dcrcd}, Hen j76 Aud having already referred
20 The act of 1861, let US look to an act passed
March 3 S65, still further to amend the act
for collection OF taxes, &c, for the purpose indl-
Gated, liz having Teen passed alter the rights
of the parties accrued, under the former acs, can
: have 10 effect upon the general questions dis
crssed. That act in terms provides IN lc egence
to redemption Of lands sold for taxes, that no
owGer shall te entitled to redeem unless he
takes an additional oath therein prescribed and
it ADDS Provided also, THAT Tenant at suffer-
u1.ce rat arW nor tenant for yeaI% shall be al
lowed 10 redeem unless he shall satisfy the
Board. that the owner of the reyersonary estate
has been loyal, and not in any matter engaged
in tie rebellion, or in giyiog aid or comfort to
the re;clS 10 this / think may be found lc-
gi>lativc Interpretation Of the word ''Owner''
and must have been designed to prevent such
parties as therein enumerated from the privi-
iepc of redemption. In case which arose in
Ohio reported in Sd Ohio sol, upon a statute
Of that safe, tho court say, the law for the
redemption of land sold for taxesis equitable in
It's provisions and ought TO receive a liberal in
terprctatOn It provides f:r the security Of
the purchaser and projects his ght in any
event. II the land be redecme1 the purchaser 5
money and interest must be refunded IN all
cases, such being the condition the purchaser
cannot complain nor can he expect rigid con-
strueton of the statute against the applicant. >
TIE question whether the person who offers
70 redeem. was legally authorized, does not in
any degree affect the merits Of the case, nor
does it concern the rights of the purchaser; the
owner does not question it. nor can the pur
chaser he permitted to do 50. 1t is matter Of