The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-11-23
The Sea Island Tax Titles.
A TEST QUESTION.


|; Mitchell and Clancy.
This was a case OF appeal from the decision OF
the Direct Tax Commissioners, with reference TO
lands on the Sea Islands which have been sold 1or
taxes, and derives great Importance from the Iac'
that it has been made test question for large
class of similar cases which have arisen during ana
since the war; 1t will be remembered that the
General Assembly at its last session appropriated
five thousand dollars for the purpose OF securing
thorough legal investigation Of the subject.
The chief features Of the case, as stated by WIN.
Whaley Esq, counsel for defence, are as follows
That William E. Baynard, in his life time, owned
Muddy Creek, Spanish Wells, and Braddocks s
ooint. He also owned other real estate, which was
either redeemed from the Tax Commissioners OF
restored by the Bureau. The whole amount Oh
taxes due by Mr.. Baynard, including the penalty
and costs, did not amount to the sum Of s7eo ana
vas paid by the sale of Muddy Greek, which was
the place first sold for taxes. Then followed the
sale Of Spanish Wells for 5000, and Braddocks
Point for $1,000 1t appears from the evidence that
the property was sold on the 1st of October, 1865
that the time for redemption expired on the lst OF
December, 1865, and that Mr.. Baynards apphca-
ton to the Bureau, dated 29th September, 1860,
was transferred by order Of General Saxton, to the
Office of the Direct Tax Commissioners on the 2st
November, 1865. Thereupon, direct application
was made to the Commissioners by MIR. Baynard,
through his Solicitor, in November, 1866, and be-
fore the expiration of the time limited by law.
| The Commissioners refused the application tor
redemption on the ground that Mr.. Baynard had
not complied with the provisions Of the law, where
as the circumstances do show that he did comply
in spirit, and in fact, and in accordance with the
universal construction given to statute law.
The grounds of appeal taken by the learned
counsel we're:
/ l. That the application to the Freedmen's Bu-
reau was for restoration, and when said appllca-
ton was transferred to the Tax Commissioners, it
was due and sufficient notice to them of an appl-
cation for redemption.
2. That the memoranda and schedule OF plants
tions filed by the Solicitor of Mr.. Baynard with
the Tax Commissioners was proper notice to them
of an application for redemption.
8. That the application OF the solicitor was the
application of the principal in the case, and, under
the law, unquestionably sufficient.
4. That the sale Of Braddock's Point and Spanish
Wells was illegal and void in view Of the fact that
the previous sale Of Muddy Creek had produced
the amount necessary for the payment Of the en-
tire tax on the entire property.
5. That the sale being illegal in part, was illegal
ab initso.
The counsel in q concise and eloquent manner
reviewed the Act of Congress of August 1851 impo-
sing general tax upon South Carolina Of $685.
57O.66.
| Section IS provides for the assessment and
| exemptions Section Sc provides for the sale OF
land, and redemption afterwards. 1t also provides
| that the tax should first be collected from the
goods and chattels of thegdelinquent with power
to distrain.. 1t further provides that where the
property is not divisible so as to enable the Tax
Collector, by the sale OF part thereof to satisfy
his claim, he may sell the whole and bid it in for
the United States, with the right Of redemption in
| two years.
This Act was followed by the Tax Act Of 1862,
which gives right Of appeal to this Court from
| the decision OF the Tax Commissioners, and the
District Court is authorized to 10 jurisdiction of
the same as in other cases involving the equity of
redemption. His Honor is therefore sitting here as
o Judge in Equity.
Section charges the direct tax upon the lands,
the assessment being according to the State valua-
tion Of 1861, with penalty of fifty per cent. in
| case Of tardy payment. Section gives the owner
| the right to pay in sixty days and discharge the
lien. Section vests the title after sale in the
| United States or purchasers. -
The other provisions OF this Act were amended
by the Act Of 1868, with which we have more es
peciay to deal in the present case. This Act pro-
vides that each lot shall be sold separately after
four weeks notice in the newspapers or three pub
Lie places. The owner is allowed to redeem within
sixty days, upon appearing in his own proper per-
son and taking the OATH, if a citizen, and paying
the taxes, penalty and costs II minor, a nom
resident alien, a loyal citizen beyond the seas,
person of unsound mind, or under legal dis
ability, the guardian, trustee, or other person
having charge Of the estate may redeem the same
at any time within two years after the sale there
of in the manner above provided and with like
| effect.
Mr. Baynard had conformed to these require
ments of the law. He had taken the oath; he was
| not engaged in the war; he was present in person
| and by his counsel when application for redemp-
ton was made and prepared to satisfy the claims
against the property.
The learned counsel cited analogous cases in the
books, quoting the decisions Of the Circuit and
Supreme Courts in determination of the chief
points of his argument. We omit these authori-
ties, not being matters Of general interest. The
following were his concluding remarks:
| Your Honor, I am done. If have trespassed
upon your patience, or occupied your attention
1 for an undue length Of tire it is because OF the
great interests at stake in the decision OF this
case. In its various bearings it is case Of grave
| importance, and one which has commended itself
f.
When we turn our eyes 10 Beaufort that lovely
/ spot, where, in times past, has been congregated
so much OF the representative wealth and intelli-
gence with which we are familiar, and think Of tho
sad contrast between the present and happy
past, how that fair land has been blighted its pal
ace homes desolated, and its people driven abroad
1t is impossible 10 dwell upon the theme with any
other than 9 melancholy remembrance, or to feel
that we shall not receive justice wherever our SOL
emn cause is heard.
Major D. 7. Corbn, United States District At
torney, in reply to the argument Of the counsel in
the defence, made the following points:
Under the provisions of the law imposing the
tax of sS6S $40 &C South Carolina, and the acts
amendatory thereto, the land Of the plaintiff was
sold December l, 1863.
| It ia especially notod in advance that the const-
tutionaity of the Acts of August S. 1861, and June
4, 1862, and Acts amendatory thereof, is not in
question. Nor is there any question as to the as
| sessment and collection of the tax, the time and
manner Of the sale, or the title passed by the sale,
! No such questions mooted, and nothing will be
| said Of them in the argument.
I The Act under which the land was sold provides
f. is redemption and if its requirements in that
reon. >% are complied with, then the petitioner is
ant;tled - redeem; if not, the law must take its
course, La, ID sqa for delinquent taxes may be
redeemed by .d mipo,, non resident, alien, &C.;
nv tbe Guardian II uStee " other person having