The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1867-03-16
OLNEY FRY, sES.
Taxes Payable In Legal Tender

Below we publish the decision OF the
Supreme Court Of the United States, re-
Gently rendered, 10 the case Of Mandel-
baum l. Klauber vs.. the United States,
to sesover taxes alledged to be due from
the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court of the
United States decides that the judgmen;
Of the District Court was erroneous in de-
Gliding that taxes should be paid in gold
and silver. It says the obligation to
pay the tax, If . subjsct of suit, as it il
treated in this case, is q debt within the
act of Congress of Feb. 25, 1862, making
the Treasury notes issued in pursuance of
it a legal tender in payment OF debts
The judgment was in direct conflict with
the act, as in requiring the payment of
coin it denied the right of payment in le-
galised paper currency"
This decision comes quite OPPORTUNITY
to taxpayers on the Pacific coast. Here
it is:
The Act If February, 1862. Fsoridhag for tAe
Payment Of DsJts in Legal TeHderL-F. Mandcl-
baum and A. klauber, plaintiffs In error, Va. the
People az the United States in the Territory Of Ne
vAdA. This was AN action commenced in the Dis
trict Court Of 0rmsby county, Nevada Territory,
TO recover for taxes alleged 20 be due from the
plaintiffs in error. Tho complaint AYERS that
between the first Monday in March and the
first Monday IN August, 1862, the plaintiffs in cr-
ror, were assessed, in pursuance Of tho territorial
law, for goods in store occupied By them In Carson
City, Nevada, assessed, at SIC, 900 twenty tons of
hay, 5000; goods in another store, $6,5OO lumber
and timber. $500 one hundred tons of hay, $4,000
on which vas levied, for hscal year 1862, q FEEDER.
al tax Of $sI 80, a Territorial tax OF 1927 so, and
u county tax of s., 22s 80.
The plaintiffs In error answered. alleging that
they had paid all taxes for that year, and q sup
elemental answer denied that the assessment al
legged In tho complaint had ever been made. The
amended complaint set up a Subsequent assess
ment," made In accordance with the provisions of
law. between the first Monday in August and tho
last Saturday in October. To this reply was made
that the hay was part Of q growing crop produced
from the rancho Of the plaintiffs in error in Doug
lass county, and was not harvested or removed into
Ormsby county until after they had been assessed
for all their property, including this rancho in
Douglas county; that of the extra amoun1 ofgoods,
about S. 900 in value had been included in tho MS
sessment in Douglas county; that the remainder
was bought som the proceeds Of their business in
the counties of Douglas and Ormsby, all of which
had been assessed and the taxes yaid for the year
long before the assessment alleged in the COM
plant; that the timber and lumber were not owned
by them until after they were assessed and their
taxes were paid for the year, and that they were
had ip the regular course of their business for the
year,
On motion of the plaintiffs above and without
notice to the defendants, as alleged, the court
struck out all the answer except the obligation re-
spccting the $1,000; and upon the bearing it was
found that the defendants had been assessed for
and Eafd "a xoa nm asna1a Of thA uatna 1nf &E2 am
part of the properly mentioned, and were entitled
TO a credit for that amount on their taxes
in 0rmsby county, and Judgment was given
for 81 1922, being the tax on the rest of the proper
ty of the assessed value Of $4,000 and costs, such
judgment to be collected in gold and silver coin
of the United States. Appeal was therefore taker
to the Supreme Court Of the Territory, where ths
Judgment was affirmed, and the cause thence came
here, the plaintiffs in error contending that tht
striking out Of the principal part of the answer ca
parte, the answer containing a valid defense, wal
error, It was equivalent to q judgment on thu
demurrer to o valid answer in favor Of the plain
tiffs.
On the merits it is claimed that under the &C
relied upon the commissioner were only author
lied to levy a tax of sixty cents on every one hun
dred dollars value Of property, whereas the Ia,
for which the suit was brought was$1 so on ever
one hundred dollars, The levy was therefore void
nor was there any levy by law, nor authority givel
by law TO the county commissioners to make TIL
levy of a Territorial tax. Tho act in question 10
November 20, 1897 ommitted to make any Pro
vision on the subject. The levy of the Territorial
tax was, therefore, also void. .
Theae errors are apparent on the face Of tn
pleadings in the plaintiffs own statemept of thei
case and upon inspection Of the record, the cour
will observe and cancel them. 1t is no objection
that these defences were not specially made in TIL
District Court. But the judgment of the Distric
Court was erroneous in being rendered for gold AM
silver coin Of the United States. The obligation
to pay the tax, if a subject Of suit, as it is treat
ed in this case, is q debt, within the act of Congress
of February rs, 1852, making the Treasury note
issued in pursuance Of it a legal tender in pay
ment of debts. Tho judgment was in direct con
fict with the act, as in requiring the payment Z
coin it denied the right of payment in legaliset
paper currency.