The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-04-19


tanned, and would not let go up to the Su-
preme Court?
We may form some idea of what the
Supreme Court itself would be likely to say
to such an application from decision it has
made on the application of bank
in Chicago to Federal judge to restrain the
of tax levied by that city upon
shares of the former institution. The PRAYER
for an Injunction was based chiefly on the
allegation that the tax was in violation of the
Constitution of the State of Illinois. But
the Supreme Court at Washington said that
it saw no ground for the interposition of a
court of equity 10y so stern process as in
junction. We give the gist of the decision
in that case
"Upon principle this must be the case. The eqult-
able powers Of the court can only be invoked by the
presentation OF case OF equitable cOgnizance
There can be no such case, at least in the Federal
courts, where there is a plain and adequate remedy
which we have mentioned exist'-LThese circum-
stances were that the enforcement OF the tax would
lead to multiplicity OF SUITS or produce irreparable
injury, or, where the property is real estate throw
cloud upon the title Of the plaintih l-'the party
OF whom an illegal tax is collected has ordinarily
ample remedy, either by action against the officer
making the collection or the body to whom the tax
illegal, the planti protesting against its enforce
ment might have had his action, after it was paid,
against the ofncer or the city to recover back the
money, or he might have prosecuted either for his
damages. No irreparable injury would have fol-
lowed to him from his collectiOn nor would he have
been compelled to resort to multiplicity of suits to
his rights His entire claim might have
been embraced in a single action
1t can hardly be said in general that collec-
tion of an income tax once year would, for
each individual, lead to a multiplicity of
suits, or produce irreparable injury, or throw
a cloud upon the title of real estate.
We do not profess to be lawyers, familiar
with the technicality of modes of procedure
in md oil ri Va 1nlx o1
lists attempting to keep abreast of all deci-
sions of judicial tribunals, or writings of
learned publicists, which affect the general
principles of public law. But it seems to us
that the Anti-Income Tax Association fails to
draw proper distinction between a remedy
by Injunction in advance of the collection
of the tax, and remedy by suit at law to
recover back from the collector the tax which
he has levied and damages for its imposition.
The latter may exist, although the former is
wanting.
We cannot but think that members of the
association made great error in not recog-
nizing years ago that the true tribunal to
address for remedy against excessive or i'm
proper taxation is the people, and through
them the legislative power. The fact is that
under an Anglo-Saxon system of liberties the
people, in respect to taxes imposed by legs-
lative authority, have not great many rights
which judicial tribunals are bound or per-
mltted to respect. The reason therefor is
well enough set forth in the recent decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States in
Dows vs. The City of Chicago, to which we
have just referred, where it said;:-
at is upon taxation that the several States chiefly
rely TO obtain the means Of carrying on their re-
spectve governments, and 1t is of the utmost i'm
portance to all Of them that the modes adopted TO
enforce the taxes levied should be nterfered with
little possible Any delay in the proceedings OF
the Officers upon whom the duty Is deyolyed to col
ernments, and thereby cause serious detriment to
the public"
1t has been repeatedly held in the State of
New York by its highest tribunals that no in
junction to restrain the collection of tax
upon personal estate, even when illegally i'm
posed, can be granted. This, indeed, is the
doctrine of most of the State courts. We are
inclined to think that, according to the princi-
pies and practice of equity jurisdiction as
established in English jurisprudence, an in
junction would not be granted to restrain the
collection of tax imposed under color of
law. Indeed, it may be stated as general
rule that, irrespective of legislation, the
action of replevin to get back property dis
trained illegally for taxes could no more be
maintained than the writ of injunction. The
wrong must be endured till a suit at law can
be brought to recover damages for its infic-
ton.
The World years ago foresaw how power
less the courts would be as against Congress,
whenever the latter body saw fit to exercise
the power in that relation given to it by the
Federal Constitution and the rules of the COM
mon and statute law of England not unsuited
to our political condition which that Constitu-
ton adopted, and therefore we began popular
agitation of the people in respect to this odious
tax. There are now in force provisions of
IT, II L., 1. II.
tors responsible to individuals for moneys
illegally collected, either by themselves
or their deputies, together with damages
and expenses of suit; prO0ided the person
of whom moneys are illegally demanded %
protests against the payment, and gives notice
that he intends to bring suit to test the vail
dity of the eXactiOn; CD appeals from the;de-
cision of the Collector to the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue; and g. within months after
the decision of the latter officer, if adverse,
actually brings suit in court therefor. Each
and every one of these things, let it be borne
in mind, must be done to enable taxpayer
to get back his money. On suit of the in
come tax may be;pronounced unconstitutional
and A recover his money; but that will not
benefit b unless he has protested, appealed,
and brought suit.
The United States cannot be sued, as every
body knows, in any form or forum, without
their own permission, and in respect to in
ternal taxes it was, say the Supreme Court,
"a matter of benehcence" to allow the col
lector to be sued; as the law "conided to the
Commissioner, or Secretary, in the first in
stance, to decide upon the matter of duties,
so it might have made them final arbiters in
all disputes concerning them" If Congress
had provided that collectors of the internal
revenue should not be responsible to indIvi-
duals for money which they exacted in COM
pliance with directions of the Secretary of
the Treasury, then, clearly, no suits could