, 1875-11-07

doubted o. called IN question, but # the states With
ou the consent Of congress tar ships OF VESSELS as u
sTumeus Of commerce. by tonnage duty or indirect
u, BY imposing the tax upon the master OF crew, they
assume Jurisdiction which they do not possess, a.
every such act falls directly within the prohibition Of
the Constitution
.prior to tie adoption Of the Constitution the
States attempted to regulate commerce, and they also
levied duties imports and e1pocte, and duties Of
tonnage, and It was the enbarraasmcr1 growing out
Of such regulations and conflicting obligations which
manly led to the abandonment tf the Confederation
and 70 the mere perfect union under the present Coz
ftitution."
that
THIS TAx 1s NOT "DCTy OF TONNAGE"
cone now for moment to consider the second OBJ
eadon to this seizure on the ground that this assss
the oWner and for that reason void It conc1ud
ed the hearing that ships and vassels rsrsona
be- The Law thi7 State in foree the time this
EeEsment made required the owners Of all per-
Eonal property to return esch year to tho Assesso1
to ts1son By certain day to be d1ed By The Assessor
and the duty Of the Assessor to fix the fair cash
yalue thereof; Rev. stst- Chap: 10, Sec q; Rer.
Stat-, Chap. a. Sees 259, 251. go, and 253.) Tho
section Ct Chapter 1o prescribed the form
Of the schedule, and required, among other things,
item *every steamboat. sailing vessel. wharf boat.
barge other water craft And by tie thirteenth
section Of the chapter it provided that AL
owning steamboats,, sailing vessels. wharf boats,
baroes, aud other sailing craft ehau be
aeaasaa ssason IN N tbe eoSpty @ T town. cty vas. o1
district In which tho same may belong or be enrolled,
registered or licensed, or kept when not enrolled reg
Here ts plain and pslp.bie duty imposed by law
upon the owner Of vessel property. It Vas admitted
On the bearing hst between the 1st Of M:y and 1st Of
Of all vessels, shown by the register Of the
port requiring them to list their property - required
Hbelznts either Of them, scheduled in any list
Of taxable property returned By them or either Of
them to the Assessor. In fact It is admitted that the
only tax assessed upon against this property is the
one In question. Undoubtedly this vessel being
personal property, should be taxed against some
Of the Of the personal property as
an independent res or thing. as 1t be assessed
rea1 estate under certain clrcumstances,-a1though
there are some features Of QUE later revenue laws
which to point to the idea that the Legislature
intended even in regard TO some casses Of personal
ass e , nba9s and
personal liability Of IN owner. But, notwithstanding
these 1nconeruities, the general principle running
time the ~as levied required the owner Of vessel
property to list it rs personal property for taxation
where subject 10 ta1ation. either BY virtue Of
his residence or the enrolment and registration Of
the property. It is not necessary that should deLe
what would be the duty Of the owner Of vessel resd
ns m .neer h1s Is
IA not claimed that these oW1.o1B, either
d them. were taxed elsewhere for this vesael,
\
three fourths Of the property, resided In Chicago
aud the rrssd w.s registered enrolled owned by
nbel=n Jacob Johnson- Here it is admitted that the
Of this property made returns Of it to tho
Assessor and the Assessor assessed In the form and
manner have indicsteo- The assessment and war
chow the OF the vessel and the Of her
Registered owner, her yaluation. aud the tax nor
does appear that johnson either Of the other libel
lants made any return Of otser personal property.
The position IS that this is tax against the vessel
such BY her naueau assessment ind warrant rem,
60 to speak-snste.d Of m assessment against her
owners,
But differ with the proc:ors for be1ants rs to the
construction and effect to be given this assessment
md warrant. True the onners might haye returned
their interest in this vessel in their list Of personal
property, and they had done 80 It should and would
have gone into thei- personal property assessment
they neglected do this, aud left the Assessor to
search out this property fl its ownership and assess
It's value best he could. The Assessor has made
assessment in which tho name Of the owner, the de-
Bcrpuon Of the property, and its valuation ali
What is requisie7 and Whist else eould the 4s-
sessor have done under the circumstances! The
owner the description Of the property, its value, and
the amount Of the tax know Of no Other legal requ
sites for tax warrant; NOT does it mako sny differ
ence, in my estimation that t1s description Of the
property is in the first column to tic left and and
the Of the owner in the second 1t seems auf
Gent 1t these facts appear On the face Of the paper
This uxy have been, and tor arght that appears in
this case tha only property for which Jacob John
taxed IN the year 1874. Il his property
piece Of property when he vas only ps owner, the
law provides way in which he could by attending to
1t IN apt time hare had the assessment corrected but
1t does not lie in his mouth after neglectng his duty
In regard to listing his property, and utter allowing
the tire to ross within which the assessment made
y tho Assessor stood open for correction to object to
the assessment In these rarticulEr3 when 1t his
obvious duty to have made it right in the first instance
n had 1t corrected in proper time.
The policy Of law il that al property ahAn bear
its equal shaze Of the burdens Of the State and City
Government. A Court Of Admiralty Is essentially
Court q Equity and unlsss The HSena1s showS ut
is In danger Of being violated, relief will not ba
given IN this Court This vessel subject to taxa
ton by the City Of Chicago Ehe registered in the
name of Jacob johnson, who was resident ct tbs
city. He must for the purposes Of taxatioa be PFC
su.ned to be the cole owner L Is possible that If
tecdon appeared before the p7oper tribunal and shown
thit he was only hsif-ovner and asked to have the
been done. But he fai,ed to do this, and there is
Enough. think, upon the face Of the
and warant and upon the admitted facts to chow that
THE TAx WAS PROPERLY ASSESSED.
It may be eatd tha* Peterson, Of the nbel1ants
md Of quarter interest In the property, did
View and therefore his interest c'd only be taxed
Thare he ded My answer to that is TINT johnson
appeared to be the sole owner OF record and officers
,re required to look into tile secret ownership Of
personal property. They do their duty when they |
'ssess he property against the apparent owners -
Instance, large wholesale OF manufacturing firm in
his city There may be silent partners resi1:ng else
shere, vino have an interest in the goods, but the
property il here tho hs1n as i business entity is
,ere md this therefore should b. and under the law
9, the place Of taxation.
come, then, to the conclusion that the tar conf
,ained Of IN this Is not duty Of Tonnage" an
hat the warrant under which this vessel ia seized and
e1d is far good to amount to justification in
his Court Of The seizure complained of do not say
hat 1t would be justification in Of Lew, for
hat question is not Lcfore me, but court IF adni-
atty. Ike court Of equity, looks into the substan
lal merits Of tho controversy, and 6nd this prop
1ty subject to assessment in the city. ThAt it
q form so assessed anl warrant Issued to the Col
fcr$ to$f Int 4nS Ia |
hown OF OF made to appear vhy The tax should not be
aid II the properly is taxed In the Of one
Hner instead Of three 1t is owing to the negligence
those owners In not returning their schedules or |
aing for correction Of tho books nftcr the
,eut was made.
The Libel will. therefore, be dismissed with costs.
Tho Heather Chince,
Gold HiI (Sep> Ntscs.
Three well-known professional sports, two Of
In Gold ELL nd ttn tn