Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-03-06


tate, then il ought al least to have put itself in
the POSITION ii another purchaser, aud have
Gouc what the law rqu'red au individual to do
If he had bought. Tie United States bid in
the pruprrly for $26 8UU.
The .hr,y-s XIII section u the act of August
5, 1861, declares:
But in al cases where The property, liable TO
= d rect tnA under this EcL, may tot be dirisible
so ~ 10 enabie the collector, By d sale of part
thu reof ~ raise the whole amount of the tax,
with all costs, charges, and commissions, the
whole vi UGH property shaI! b sold and the sur
plus Of the proceeds OF the sale, alter satisfying
the trl, cost, charges, and commissions, shall
hc paid 10 the owner OF the prop rty, or his legal
representatives, if he o. they car OF BIZ found,
or retu:e Ia receive the SAM, then such surplus
shall be deposited in the Treasury q! the United
States, t lie there hel,' Tor the If the owner
or his lrgni relrcSe ttlrc> unll: h .. til y sha:l
make application th' retor u tn" Secretary Of
tn: rcasury, whn upon such APP LEGATION, shall,
b. warrant ON the Treasury, ca-so tn same to
rC pas to the Mppl { mt.
Thea if Jill individual had BID SO $40, the
'uouey, after Icduc,lug the tax, e., would
have bceu placed IN the Treasury, Tor the fu-
turr use ot the uwt.rr. Why should hot the
United States, Which, II brcauc the best bidder
dJ the same liiug aud cause the money TO be
placed in tie Treasury alsn ? What Is there
either in the law or Ia the Justice vi the case
10 make the rule different between the United
States aud Another purchaser aud exempt the
former lrom what the latter would have been
required 10 d.? Yet the UoieJ States have
not duue what cltiz II who purchased would
have done, ard though they bid $50 500, have
ouiy paid S92 u, with certain charges added,
aud do not Seem inclined to comply with their
ia.
The property was exposed TO "pcu sale the
United States step forward ani say: | will
give $50 500, and the bid Is accepted. The
Uultru States gets the land, Vel iucs not pay
the money.
The act OF February 6. lSG3, contains this
prOvlS,, viz
That the certificate If said commissioners shall
only lie Affect, Us evidence OF the regularity
and validity OF sale BY estsbish. & the fact that
said property WAS not subject 10 taxes, or that
the taxes had been paid previous ~ sale. or that
the prop .rty hu1 been redeemed according to
the provisions Of this act.
The Supreme Court of tho Uutiei States, in
the case OF " illiam ct al. W. Pcytous Lessee,
t Wheaton, had decided that
In the case of naked power, not coupled with
IN interest, the law requires that every pre-requ-
sit to the exercise of that power should pre-
cedo it.
In the case Of lands sold for the non payment
of taxes, the narShuPs deed is not even prilus
facia evidence that the prerequisites required by
law have been complied with, but the parties
claiming under it must show positively atthey
have been complied with.
The provision Of the statute quoted last
above was, no doubt, an attempt to evade the
force of this decision. But is a law entitled to
any favorable constr ucilon which attempts to
declare that its uwu requirements shall be not
complied with? The law requires certain
things to be done before sale should be made
notably that the time and place OF sale should
be advertlsed-a fact easily proved Yet this
might have been wholly and Wlltully omitted,
and the owner, under the law, would not be
allowed to prove the omission. There might
have heeu fraud 10 sale or misconduct 10 the
COMM ssiooerS, yet they would not have been
given 10 proof under the statute.
The act OF August 5. 1861, only provides,
when land is capable Ut division, for the sale
Of 81 much Vi it ouiy as may be necessary 10
pay the tax assessed and the charges. And
while the subs qucut acts OF June, 1862, and
February, 1868, do not in terms contain this
same provision and allow, if they were the ouly
statutes on the sui jcct, the sale OF the whole
land no matter how valuable, for the tax, 10
matter how trhiDg, yet il is by no means clear
that Congress Intended TO repeal the original
law 10 that respect. la all the history of tax
laws there has been great uniformity of ieglsIa-
tiun 10 favor OF sale Of 90 more Of the land
than is needed for the collection of the tax 1t
is not to be supposed that Congress intended to
pass an act of coufScation, under the disguise
Of bill 10 raise revenue. Tax laws, which
always trench upon private right for the public
good. must be construed strictly, and the law
must not BIZ stretched in it's administration be-
You'd the limit prescribed BY the legislative
power. And your petitioner Is advised that
it was the duty, according 10 the decision 10 the
case Of Beuuett vs.. Hunter, of those who ad
ministered and executed the law, to construe
the acts of 1861, 1862, and 1863 together, and
to give such construction 10 them az, while
it rcndcred effectual the collection of taxes,
should not destroy or affect private rights fur
Their than was absolutely necessary. 1t was not
necessary to sell eleven hundred acres of land
to pay a tax of 1920 when the sale of ten, or
at most, twenty acres would have been sufi-
Gent for the purpose. The cases Of Stead
VS.. Course, 1 Crauch. 403; CITY of Washing
ton VS.. Pratt, S Wheaton, GSl Mason vs.
Pearson, 9 How, 24S; Bennett VS.. Hunter re-
ported both 10 Is Grattau md 9 Wallace, show
HON Tue SufIcut COull, dS well DO VIZ OhotN
Courts, strongly uphold the title OF the original
owner against vcndec at tax sale, when 1t
is not made as the necessary and proper means
for collecting the tax, aud lean against any con
structiou of the laws authorizing it which would
pervert it from being au indispensable measure
to obtai tax, into an instrument OF tUrtcl-
turG.
The Court of Appeals of Virginia, in Ben
nett VS.. Hunter, Is Grattau, 100, decided that
1.-THE power of Congtess to provide for the sale
OF land for the payment of taxes Is limited TO
that object, and law which requires that the
whole land shall be sold in al cases, without
regard to the fact that it may be divided with
out Injury to it, and the tax may be paid by a
sale of part OF it, is unconstitutional. y And
the decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court
of the United States on appeal from the same
case. reported in Wallace.
The acts of 1862 and S63 make 40 provision
for the sale of personally, if any can be found,