New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-22
A Pungent Criticism by Colonel Case
AN APPEAL FOR RELIEF FOR TAXPAYERS
New ORLEANS, La, May 10, 1Sl

DEAR GENERAL-Me are uuucl u1ahy oOil-
cations for the printed copy OF House Dill
No. /, introduced by Hon. Robt c. Schenck,
March g. 1869, entitled "a bill to reduce
into one act and to amend the laws relating
TO internal revenue" II is quite probable
that this, or some other measure, more or
less revisory of the whole internal revenue
system will soon come up tor the conslde-
ration Of your honorable body, ana whether
it is this or any similar proposition 1t can
not be too thoroughly criticised or patiently
considered. An internal revenue system
being conceded necessity, 1t Is of vast ina.
portauce that it be made Us perfect as pos
sibe.
For a considerable period Of time both
members of our firm had q somew hat
thorough experience as government o1hcIals
in the execution of the internal revenue laws.
Since then, and for three years past, We
have made professional specially iof the
defense of cases and the prosecution OF
claims arising under these laws. We think,
therefore, it is not actual egetism in US to
pretend to know something OF what such
laws should be, as well as what they nave
been and are.
1t is in the hope that, speaking from such
an experience, we may be able TO make
some suggestions Of value TO both govern
ment and taxpayers tina. we make bold to
address You iour immediate representatives
on the subject. Let us begin by calling TO
mind some general principles:
/. Government is an organization grow
ing out of necessity. and that necessity is
the benefit and protection of the governed.
This bepett and necessity constitute its
object. For the sake of this, the governed
organize their government1nd consent to
bear its burdens.
), The machinery of government, and to
run it cost money. This money comes, ana
must, directly, or indirectly, from the
pockets Of the governed, and it is one OF the
burdens ia which they submit, that they may
be secured in the enjoyment OF their de-
clared rights. One mode OF raising the
money required. is by taxation.
8. Taxes are. therefore, lor at least should
be) the purchase price paid BY the citizen for
and applied, they should be cheerfully paid.
But inasxnuch as it is one of the declared
rights of the citizen to control and enjoy his
money and his gains as he pleases, except
40 much thereof as shall pay his share OF
government expenses, and as 1t Is the doty
OF government to assure aim this rlgnt,
every tax law should, as much as any other
enactment, show both in its general fea-
lures as we'll as its details, due respect for
this right of the citizen. Perhaps IN such
law, more than in any other, should 1t ap-
near that this right has not for moment
been forgotten by the lawmakers.
4. 1t is Enthusiastically, perhaps-thatta tax
laws are inherently odious, and must be, to
some extent. stringent, penal, and summary.
If this be SO, it is equally true and 90 be re-
membered that in proportion 10 their IN
popularity will be the dllculty of enforcing
them, and they will be unpopular and looked
upon as oiious in proportion as they are
summary and penal beyond the demands OF
necessity. So, alec, will they appear more
odious as the taxpayer, remembering that
he should be taxed only for protection, sees
that the very Law which taxes does not pro
tect him even in his most common rights,
but, it NAV be, ignores or trifies with them.
Tested By these general principles and with.
out going so far with the criticism as it
might be carried, we must say that, In our
Judgment, the proposed bill contains pro-
visions OF a very Objectionable character.
Whether it would prove, II enacted, an i'm
provement on existing laws, we are not
called upon to decide. To be more specific,
look at the number of crimes it proposes to
define and punish. Sixty-six different sec
tions designate at least one hundred specl-
fed acts as criminal, and to be punished Dy
fines VARYING from g few hundred to ten
thousand dollars and by. imprisonment
for periods ranging from few
months to ten years. We have not CON-
pared, to see whether this bill adds to
the number of felonles and misdemeanors,
as defined by existing revenue laws. Both
however. so bristle with fines, pensltles,
and imprisoDments, that II they should De
entitled 'acts for the punishment OF crimes
against the United States" 1t would be no
misnomer. These criminal features would
be less WORTHY of consideration but Tor the
fact that in criminal matters there Is no
right of appeal save in the single instance
OF divided bench. Time was when no
ordinary civil case could be taken 10 the
United States Supreme Court. unless the
amount in controversy Was 81 least sZ0VV.
But wears ego it was found that !. vss es.
sential TO give ihe government the rlSn. o.
appeal in revenue cases without REGARD 20
the amount involved: and IS It was gwen TO
the government so WAS it to the citizen; go
that now in q civil case arising under these
laws, If the sum in controversy De no more
than twenty dollars, the citizen can appeal
or take his cause by writ Of error to the 81
preme Court, and have the opinion OF tass
high tribunal as to his rights. But Il his
liberty instesd of his twenty dollars IS ss
stake. the law denies him all opportunity to
correct any possible, not 70 say pEooaoie,
error of the court below.
True it is that many and unblushiug have
been the frauds upon aud evasions OF our
revenue laws. Hence, the proyocatlon Is
strong to lay heavy hand on the offenders;
but still bearing in mind that, the end OF
government. is the protection OF the gov
erned, and that for this end may he be
taxed, surely we may urge that II 1t Is
necessary thus to swell the catalogue OF
crimes, the citizen should be able to see in
the very law which Furnishes the guilty evil
dence that the government is IS watchtul to
guard the liberty of the innocent, and pro-
tect him from the disgrace of the penlten.
tisry, as it is to insure him his money.
Hereafter, probably, criminal cases will not
be SO often tried by a single judge, as they
have been heretofore, but even two
good judges may err, and it Is no credit to
our legislation that, while we create new
crimes by the hundred, we deny to the ac-
cused, whose liberty and good name for life
are in peril, that right of review which he
may have il ouly dollars are at stake.
In this connection we desire to notice an
other abuse authorized by existing laws,
which the proposed bill does not remedy.
We allude to that ancient provision when
renders a judges certificate OF probable
cause for seizure protection to the govern
ment and its officers against costs, rs well
As damages, no matter how Causeless the
seizure NAV have been in fact. We have no
desire 10 see faithful officers suffer, but we
do desire to see the government held TO the
rules it enforces against the poorest OF lts
citizens. 10 q controversy In court be-
tween the government and an lndi'
yidual, the former has ever the
vantage ground. So to speak, 1t Is light
of millions against one. The government
stands in its own court, appeallngto Its own
functionaries to execute Its own laws. JUS
prestige (may We not say its patronsge!),
and many other Influences may be brought
to bear against the single-hsnded cluZen.
IL with these odds in its favor 1t Is beaten,
why exempt it from the ordinary respons,'
bilities of q defeated sutton? Ii sues b,
he must sustain his case, or pay costs. II
ne sues maliciously and without good canse,
he must nav damages as well as costs. why