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

| almost u COPY Oh the one 10 Dc lUuuu III Ola-
tutes al Large. volume IL, page 1879, giving
jurisdiction To the Court OF Claims III that
case.
Ii is certainly IL matter Of importance to the
Uutcd States that they should have good
title to all the property held by them aud it is
not to be presumed that any just government
would desire to sazc and hud by force aud
without right the estate even ot rebel. And
| did hope that when | suggested on behalf
OF MIR. Lee. that be really still owned 10 law
and right the Arlington estate, aud believed
he could recover il ia court Of law, but did
not desire to do so on account Of the purposes
to which it was DOW devoted, aud gave what
seemed to NE to be good rcasOus Tor duubtng
the validity vi the Government title, aud uttcr
ed to submit lis claim, both OF title and com
peusaliou, 10 IL United States court, TO be de-
lermiued III the cud by the Supreme T. ur,,
that the proposition was reasonable and faIr
and should have becu accepted but the Com
mittee Oh the Judiciary thought otherwise, and
reported against The bill.
MIR. Lee is informed that the tax was actual
" rendered before the sale on behalf Of Mrs
Lee, aud has good reason 10 believe that the
lcuder eau be proved.
Aud now having stated the facts of the case,
| wish TO call attention 10 several PROVISIONS vi
the statutes referred to, aud TO decisions OF our
courts, which to my mind clearly establish the
uroposilou that the Government is IN TACT
without any valid title To Arlington.
The acts ID question purported to be uothtng
more than tax aws-laws to provide Increased
revenues aud to pay the Interest on the public
debt Iu the execution OF such laws, there
should be no discrimination OF persons, but
assessments and collections should fall equally
upon the just and Uni uSt, aud should be 10 all
things uniform. But let Us see whether these
laws were executed by the officers of the Gov
erument iu that spirit | quote now FROM The
testimony Of john liawxhursl, Que OF the CON-
mlssiouers of direct tax at Alexandria, Virgin
la given 10 the case of Taccy vs. Irwin.
Question 2 What principle or what consider
alton governed the commissioners in advertising
the property for sale alter the expiration vi the
sixty days provided By law for The payment of
the tax? Did they adrcrtis all indlscrinlnately,
or was there any discri mlnatlOn shown?
Answer. The first list of about fifty pieces Of
property was selected from the general list OF
property belonging to those persons who were
supposed to bu most offensive To the United
States Government.
And not only was this the spirit 10 which
these new revenue laws were executed, but
the statues themselves contained several pro-
visions very offensive aud unjust, aud 10 my
opinion, directly IN couHct with the Coustltu.
ton.
Let it be recollcced that Mary Ann Ran
doph Lee was uuder the disability of cover
ture. The third section Of the act Of Juuc I,
1862, is as follows, viz:
That it shall be lawful for the owner or own
ers of said lots or parcels of lands within sixty
DAYS after the tax commissioners herein NAMED
shall have fixed the amount, to pay the Tax thus
charged upon the same, respectively, into the
Treasury of the United States, or to the COM
| n IL
cate thereof, By virtue OF which tue SAID lands
shall be discharged from said tax.
And the seventh section OF the act OF Feb
ruary, G. 1868, has these Two provisions, VIZ:
In all cases where the owner of said lots OF
parcels of ground shall not on or before the day
Of SALE appear in person before the said board OF
commissioners, and pay the smount of said tax,
with len per centum interest thereon with the cost
of advertising the same or request the same To
be struck off IT, purchaser for less sum than
twu-thirds of the assessed value Of said several
lots or parcels of ground, the said commissioners
shall b, authorized ut said sale to bid OF the
same Tor the United S1stes at u sum not exceed
ing two-thirds OF the assessed value thereof, un-
less some person shall bid larger sum, &c.
And provided further, That if the owner OF said
lots OF ground shall be minor, or nonresident
alien, or loyal citizens beyond the seas, person
Of unsound mind, or under legal disability, the
guardian trustee, or other person having charge
of the person or estate Of such person, may re.
deem the same at any time within two years
after the sale thereof, and in the manner above
provided and with like effect.
Now, these sections, together with the rule
uniformly observed by the commissioners, re-
ouired the owner to appear in person before the
sale and pay the tax aud other charges upon
the estate Suppose the owner las in this casc)
was married woman, or lunatlc, or an IN
fant, then the statute and the rules required
what might be an imposslblliy, aud what was
certainly iD contravention OF all our ideas OF law
and right The commissioners we're strict con-
structioniss, and ii the owner should have hap
pened 10 be an infant at the breast It's rights
we're forfeited and its estate gone, unless it APP
peared in person aud 10 person paid the tax,
for" said the commissioners, I'VE will allow
nobody to do it for him. Or if the property
belonged to luuatic, who was perhaps confined
10 s0me asylum, 10 order to preserve his estate
he had to recover his reason, make his escape
from the asylum, and pay the tax, for nobody
could do it iur him. And so also with
married woman
This was the case before The sale.
And to add to the euormity and abSurdly OF
the statute and the regulations while before
the sale nobody but the infant, the lunatlc, the
fen,e covert, could pay the tax, after the sale
these persons were not permitted to redeem,
but the redemption could only be made by the
guardian, trustee, or other person having
charge of the person or estate OF such person,
&C. The infant 10 the mean time may have
attained majority, but could not redeem, be-
cause that could only be done by his guardian.
The married woman, by the death Of her hus
band, may have become sole, yet she could DOT
now do what she only could do while she was
covert. The luuatic may have become saue, yet
be would not be permitted to do what the law "a
lowed nobody else to do while he was a uuatc.
Mary Ann Randolph Lee was Jeme corert
and only bad lite estate 10 Arlington. Can
the whole estate, as we'll that of the remainder
man or reversoDcr as Of the life-teuaDt, be sold
for the default of the life tenant in paying the
taxes, especially when that lifr-tenaut is undcr
disability 10 any law, even if 1t had been