New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-22


get a trial. When the case came on tne
District Attorney made the sharpest hgnt
| possible for the government, put at the emu
| of three DAYS contest, SO complete Was the
| defense that he felt his cause hopeless ana
| declined to address the jury, as did also
| counsel for the claimant. The Jury returned
| a verdict for the claimant without leaving
| their seats, They were not ten minutes in
| making M their verdict! Yet, in this case,
1 the government asked and obtained a certi
| ficste of reasonable cause, despite the most
earnest opposition Of defendants at
torneys. We presume the Judge
granted it reluctantly, and because he
that it was doing the claimant great IN.
| Justice. II cost this citizen two thousand
| dollars to vindcate his rights in this case,
| leaving out of the account time devoted to
the defense. Here, then, the government
had seized and held property worth $50, ooo
for nearly a year. had broken up entirely
the owners business for the same period,
put him to heavy expenditures of money, and
then, being signaly defeated. came into
court and begged to be excused, as it was,
| from refunding the costs which he had been
compelled to pay May not this man well
INQUIRE what profit there is in homes ty Re
Numbering that he should only be taxed for
protection, may he not ask some wise head
| TO tell him the difference between such pro-
The case we have cited must not be set
down as exceptional. Clients Of ours, coz
stituents of yours, have been treated 10
| similar Justice in the Federal courts IN the
cities Of Cincinnati, Louisville and st.
| Louis, and We are warranted IN saying that
in almost every seizure case III when gov
| eminent is defeated, such certificate IS
asked for and granted. Going back to gen.
eral principles we insist that if government
| will have its tax laws respected, 1t must
| prove Itself as willing and anxious to IA axe
| amends to the taxpayer whom 1t has
wronged as it is eager and vigilant to detect
and punish fraud. To the government
must be applied the same rules as to dam
| ages and costs that the citizen is requiredfto
| submit to. for those VINO bear its burdens
| can see no reason for any distinction. Is
| our great Republic SO poor that it must be
| permitted to sue IN lorna pdupeI.tS
We recur again 10 the essential principle.
Strip tax law so far as possible OF
odious features. Let the taxpayer as he
his rights are respected as are those
OF the government. If 3 summary remedy
is given to collect taxes, insure to the
citizen some process equally speedy TO
recover back his money when Illegally col.
lected, or, what is better, to prevent It's col
lection when not warranted by law. Then
will you have a measure that will command
GREETED that existing laws and the proposed
new one are open alike to grave objections
on this score. Indeed, il is TO this point
more than to any other that We would IN
vite special sttentlon, and urge radical
change. Existing laws not only provide no
speedy remedies for the citizen who has
been or is likely TO be injured. but 1eny
him resort TO ordinary ores, aid leave open
to him only the most circuitous modes Of re.
dress imsgins able, and We fail to see in MIR.
Schencks bill any complete change for the
better.
Congress msy tax the citizen. The tax
thus imposed be must pay; but there ends
the claim Of the government against him.
II beyond this liability dollar OF his money
is forced into the treasury against his con-
sent, government has no more moral right
to hold and claim it than if 3 theft had
placed il there! Nor does il better the mat
ter in morals for Congress 10 say to the cit-
gen thus wronged, as is now proposed:
'Sir, within a certain time and II certain
wsy, you may ask for a return OF your own.
but il you suffer that limit to expire the
money should no longer be yours Is that
magnanimous? Is it the proper mode Tor
collecting revenue! In our JUDGMENT the
people will unanimously say, statutes OF
limitations may do tor peace measures be-
tween citizens, but a just government should
hold itself ready, even at the end of 3 CELL
| fury, % return to the citizen his own" But
| this is comparatively an Insignificant point,
| though We may return TO it. Look az an
| other in the last clause of section ttty-four
of the proposed bill copied from the
act of March 2, 1867, which provides that
| mo suit for restraining the assessment or
| collection of tax sAal be maintained in any
court s.
When this pro - ID was first enscted. we
| considered il unconstitutional, and We know
that more eminent members OF the protes
| sion were of the same opinion. Such IS still
our conviction, though the Supreme Court
has since, incidentally, recognized Its vaildi-
| ty, the question OF It's conslituslonaltJ not
| being raised.
If the Congress can deny to the citizen one
| remedy in court so may it another. SO ali;
and thus, closing the doors Of the courts, 1t
msy virtually abolish the Judicial depart
ment of the government. But concedlng
| the power to pass such a law, 1t remains, as
| already asserted, and as this provision
proves, that existing and proposed avs allke
| deny 10 the injured taxpayer the most COM
mon remedies. We 60 even further, and as.
sers that in this instance he is denied what
| il the best remedy, as well for the govern
ment az for him. Grant. if you please, that
even low, and by the proposed bill the tag
payer may, by a tedious, circultous route,
| 3. las. reach q point where he may sue
|
| or collection of so-caled tax. Practically,
the remedy is, sud will generally prove,
mere mockery.
An assessor proceeds without any right to
make an assessment 1--WE know, and so 90 you,
| tina. assessors have done SOY. but the law
says he shall not be eDjoined. He hands
over the roll to the collector. In vain is he
told that the whole thing is illegal; he, too,
may 10. be restrained while the assessment
Is his warrant to collect. The taxpayer mas
property, but not funds in hand to meet the
dem and; his property 10 seized ana so.d
until enough is sacrificed under the hammer
10 satisfy the claim. To one thus victimized
what is the ultimate, remedy By action OF
| trespass or case against the assessor or col
| lector, or both. but shsm and cheat 40"
| is he to be made good for property sold for q
| song? Is it said that meantime the comm g.
sioner may do the taxpayer justice we
answer that while he may, there is nothlng
| that says he must. He is not the JUDICIARY,
and cannot practically be substituted LOT II,
| while it is one OF the most unjust features
of existing law that the injured taxpayer
| cannot get into court at ali, except he goes
round By Washington City, and does opel
sance first to the Commissioner and Urea
sury Department. In one instance Only
Chat Of = tax in excess of s5oo) does the new
bill seem to propose something N'Ne
| better.
The proceeding by bill for an Injunction,
on the contrary, is one IN which all such
delay might be dispensed with; tor While II
would give the citizen protection, the gov
| eminent could at the same time be fully Sc
cured against possible loss, Tor the Chaucellor
could aud would require of the applicant sui.
ficient security to pay all taxes and damages
for which he might be found liable, before
| granting HIM even temporary restraining