The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-01
TIKI kNTI-,NC0NE TAX Association OF NEW
YORK.

Advice TO People Who Desire It's EencHts.
To TIE EDITOR OF TIE HERALD -
VIII You permit me TO occupy q short space in the
columns OF your valuable paper in order to reply TO
q esti0n which is pat TO me by great many as TO
wae,her they VIII not be equally benefited although
they are not members OF association, by the re-
suit OF any proceedings which we may take to pre-
vent the collection of the income tax to test the
constltutionality OF the act imposing 1t? To such
inqurers desire TO point out some OF the adyan-
tages obtained by the combination OF many persons
10 carry out movement such as we have undertaken
and the benefits which those obtain who unite with
such an association. commence with the first pro.
ceeding necessary TO be taken, viz, the protest.
This Is not merely a formal compliance with Gus
tom In legal proceedings. IL is material protect
Ing ali The rights which the person making pro-
test supposses himself to possess. Unless he has
made this protest before he has paid his money to
the collector he has lost all remedy, however illegal
the tax unconstitutional the law. This was the
decision made by the Supreme Court OF the United
States in the case OF The City Of Philadelphia vs..
The Collector, reported in the 9th Of Wallace page
100 The Court said IN that case:-"where the party
voluntarily pays the money he is without remedy;
but il he pays 1t by compulsion OF law, or under
protest. Or with notice that he intends to
pring suit to test the validity of the claim.
he may recover . IL back II the assessment
winch person must make In order 10 secure his
rights and to avail himself afterwards OF any dec
sion against tne legality Of the tax, the association
furnishes 10 Its members.
Secondtg-The ASSOCIATION intends to follow up
It's protest by active proceedings to prevent the
tax, If possible from being cole TED from us mem
bers. IL Is unnecessary 10 repeat what has already
been said IN the circulars which the ASSOCIATION
have published, that II by the proceedings which
they take theT succeed in preventing tile collection
OF tue tax the restriction would apply only TO those
who were parties 10 the proceedings ladyert 10 this
oaly TO show taat the intention OF trying this
remedy is not abandoned. 1t has already been
SAID that the ASSOCIATION will not be deferred
from making the effort 10 prevent the collection OF
tue tax Whatever the act imposing it may declare
heretofore. l come, thea, TO the Gear remedy
which The law allows. The members OF the asso-
unctly the grounds of then refusal ii The collector
INSISTS ON the tax being paid. IL must be paid under
protest, and an appeal made to The Commissioner Of
Internal Revenue or It's reclamation. Ii this fails,
suit must be brought to recover back the money.
These proceedings must be taken by every one VINO
desires TO resist the collection Of the tax to re.
cover the money paid. Yet, to take such proceed
ings individually would give him much trouble and
expense; as member OF the association his ex-
pense would be limited to the membership ice,
and he would have the benefit or the advice and
services of the eminent counsel retained.
There Is another point which would suggest. 1t
Is with reference To the probability that Congress
VIII repeal this act next session. II is that II
they do so they VIII repeal the remedy likewise as
To all who nave not Commenced proceedings u pre-
vent them from reciainns their money. II this
1870 and hadno taken proceedings 10 reclaim would
be prevented from dong SO, whereas the members
OF tie association would have lost none oil their
rights and the money which they had paid, IL they
had been compelled to do So would be recovered
back. There IL one more pon: 1t Is that with refer
ence 10 some important part OF the tax on Incomes
the courts OF the United states have already pro-
Ounceu the TAX In those respects unconstitutional.
would cite the case OF Day Burlington, decided
IN the April term o The Supreme Court OF the United
States sustaining Judge Cifiord's decision in the
Circuit tourt, that tax The salary OF
sta officer u unconstitutional because IL IS tax
on state Iustrumentallty, and IL s In acco dance
with the principle governing the decision in TINS
case that Judge Giles decided recently IN the United
states Circuit Court, III the case vi Ihe United States
vs.. Inc Baltimore ana ohio Railroad Company
that a lax on municipal bonds unconstitutional
because state city ana county bonds alike State
lnstiudentalities. There are decisions likewise
mace by the Supreme Court in past years WINCH
Wnen the principle governing them rs applied as u
test 20 the tax on income from real estate, profits
fiom exports, and other paris Oi the income tax,
VIII compel the courts 10 decide against the constl-
tutlonaiy of these we'll Ii has likewise been re-
cenJy decided III the case OF Hubbard vs. Bralnard,
in the Supreme Court OF Errors, In Connecticut that
where part OF an assessment is Illegal the whole
assessment j. Illegal There ~, therefore, good
ground lor nope III al that We attempt.
MlRON WINSL0W, Secretary.