The New York herald., 1871-02-22
INTERNAL REVENUE.

Officers of Internal Revenue Not Authorized
10 EIakc Seizures Outside of Their Own Dis.
tricts-Decision by Commissioner Osborn.
Yesterday, in the United States commissioners,
Court Commissioner Osborn rendered q decision,
which we give below in full, on a very important
point. Two ofcers-assistant assessors OF internal
revenue-connected with the Third collection dis
trict. went into another district and made seizure
therein, acting under the impression that they were
vested with authority to do so. The Commissioner
holds that BY this act they exceeded the powers
vested IN them by the law Congress- and that they
could not perform official duty outside the limits or
their own jurisdiction unless specially authorized TO
do SO by the Secretary OF the Treasury.
THE DECISION.
The United States Us. John Eueret and Fsedericn
Porter.-The following is the decision OF Mr.. Com.
missioner Osborn, above referred to:-
The defendant, Everett, is charged with having
failed or neglected to eflace the marked stamp and
brand from whiskey barrel at the time the con.
tents were drawn or or emptied therelrom, in VIC.
passed July TO- 1868; and Iurther he, together with
Potter, ls charged with having dispossessea or re-
been seized by tine compartments John D. Carroll
ana Frank V. Warde, as assistant assessors or In
ternal revenue. The evidence shows that the COM
plalnantS were assistant assessors OF the rlrd COL
lection district and noe internal revenue officers in
and for the Thlrtysecond district by virtue OF any
commission. The question arises-have the com.
plainans, under their commission authority to acr
revenue officers outside OF The Third collection dis
trict; and If not, then the charge Of resculnu
maintanedY The c0mpalnants may be justified In
attemptng m r. 70 secure the barrel as evidence OF the
lection after the seizure Internal revenue officers
unless they mad authority to act outside OF their
special DISTRICT Tor the statute does not provide for
the Criminal redress against persons rescuing pro.
perty so seized detained, unless the person or
GERS acting within their jurisdiction Section 81 Of
the act OF July 20, 1858, reads as foilows:-'That
from and after the passage OF this act no or
collector Shall be detailed or authorized to discharge
any duty imposed by law on any other collector or
assessor" The proper interpretation-Oi this Sec
sor, together with their deputies and assistants TO
the district to which they are appointed, and any
act or thing done by such officer beyond the
limits Of his official district is not done as
by an internal revenue officer, unless he
soner Of Internal Revenue or by the Secretary OF
the Treasury II is judiclous that such territorial
jurisdiction should be confined to the officers spc.
officers OF other districts to medde with and dis
turb the system lnaugurated by the assessment and
found derect or inefficient In the discharge OF their
duties the statute provides for such misfortune,
as the case VIII justify. Section sIxty-seven OF The
act OF July l3, 1865, which Claimed by the govern
ment as authorizing any internal revenue officer to
which may furnish evidence OF fraud, authorized
compliments 10 seize and detain the barrel as in-
ternal revenue officers Such construction Is too
genera. Congress must have meant when the law
was under discussion, that ''any internal revenue
oflcer'' within the jurisdiction OF his Commission
for there are officers In every district Throughout the
United States, and to such as arc appointed 10
their respective districts can this law only
apply. II the statute permits officers oil revenue In
general to perform duties any where and every where
then section fifty one OF the act OF July 20. 1865 has
no force and effect. There is a contladliion, and
one or the other must be declared null and yod.
Wherefore, with the views have expressed, the
Compainants were not ofncers OF revenue bevond
the limits of the Third collection district, and tue
accusation against the defendants that they were
resisted in The discharge Of their duty as assistant
assessors and the property seized by them rescued
cannot be maintained in law, and the complaint on
that cnarge Is dismissed and the defendants dis
charged. The evidence on the charge of failure to
erace the stamp, brand and mark Is fun OF contra
ictions the barrel being empty; YET unler all
IN, circumstances, fail to detect any criminal in.
ieni on the part OF the defendant Everett In the
transaction. He is therefore discharged
rnc District Attorney Tor the government; William
j. Gibson Tor The deiendant2s