, 1876-09-30
INCOME-'TAXES.
The Decision in the Rhode Island
Case.
It's Applicability to the Case Of Mr..
Tildon.
Rnsion A,frtr.ftsr, Sent, 27.

end II not pleasant reading. II Isn't agreeable
In these hard times 10 bo reminded Ut the posi-
btllty Of having to pay !nconc taxes wllicl, It
was supposed were safely escaped tell ycars ago.
But the decision referred to atIlrn.s tho liability,
md alllrms It on tic basls Of decision already
given BY tho United Statcs Supreme Court 80
that It would SEEN rs II there might bo gen.
cral over',Aulng uf accounts between tho Gov-
eris1'ent and ITS citizens In tho lnturcst Of tho
fortiigr. ,.r-.
The ctrcumetanccs Of the case tnnJ be briefly
AtAlctl. Tho Hon. Il. G.. 1tazafd, Of Newport,
I,adc no return Of hLa tueome to tle United
states Asgcssor for tho ycar 1859, and tllo As
come on which tho legal tax was so'9.5u. 10
tlis 60 per cent was allc rs the penalty for not
making return Of Ills incoIne rnder onth as
tl,o law reQl1'ire1, an'l Mr.. IInzard paid tho
that hc and tho Government wcrc qutta on that
scorc. So tho casc stood until so.1,e time Inst
year, when tic United states Treasury Dopart-
mont instituted suit against Mr.. Hazard for
actually pa1l I'd ine.,mc tax ior lSGS ani tl!c
amount hc slloltld hayo paid Oh Ills actual in-
come for TINT ycnr II was alleged tint llts ir-
como was SO mitch In excess Ut tho asscss1llcnt
tlst i, l,e ~ still owed tho Government tnx OF
Learned counsel wore employed on either
side, and It was recognized tlIat tho suit was o
test ot,e. The defchsa wus, OF course, that tho
Government, having liked the assessli,cnt by
proper o!1!ccr nnd Imposed md collected the
asbarrcd FROM. recovery Of anything more.
There was no disputo 30 far % the rccurl shows,
Of tho fnct that N1r. lIazattls income for that
year was such that the 1ult tax would have been
over t18, ,ou9; but 1t was maintained that tho
defendant hah elected not to make 4 return,
and had forfeited and paid tho penalty Of that
neglect, which WAs an Oil OF tho Mattor, con-
elusive 80 far ns The Government was concerned.
On tlo other l,nnd, the Government maintained
Court III tho raso Of tic dollar Savings Bank
against tllo United Statcs aEllrmGl tho right Of
action IN such cases, notwithstanding tho Ictfon
OF the Assessor and tic payment u tho penalty,
q!,d this Y, yIe!r is sustained by the Circuit Court,
1t 1nny then be presumed TO be settled that
the Government Is not 1rDarred from tnycsti-
gating my rase In which It's officers assessed
The ineomo Of cittzetl during Tho term when
TO rerorcr wlIat was due md unpaid. No doubt
there Rre many suct cascs. TWAS not an ur-
common thing for mun who were tnakIng money
iatscr than thcy cared To haYo known, To elect
s f ts fes opa d ps tas eSf'a5 j. 5ssyy 5ssy
sinnott in his defense Of Iiden. "y6s
statnte gave tho .itaxxpaycr, tho option
to take that conrsc.n THO Supreme Court
does not SO regard it. It wns nut an option, ut
least not IN nuy such sense a. to Ioblr tic
Government from collecting ut my time nit
that may 10 due. It WAS ineans Of preventing
tbs total cseape OF persens from payment 6f
income tax, and undoubtedly was Intended to
Ts aaacr es IL u sHPs y o1s * ns3q - S
ex-Asscssor III our colunlns day or two ngo.
1t never was tho Intent Of the law to provide
way hy Which men might escapo just taxation.
THIS decision ettectuAlly dssslpatcs tic theory
tained
1t cannot fail to bc noticed TINT this deeislon
Is applicable to tho casu Of GUY. Tdon; il tho
facts Ia his caso arc ns alleged. Hu Madu
for tho ycars 1S69-'8, AMI tIcnccIortl as long
Us tho income tax xnA levied lnaIe no return
but paid hfs ta1 On III asscsatl income With tho
penalty, prgfcrriug u 10 this rather than tnko
thy tr9ublo Of making a true return, under
Oatt. 1t may hayo been moro cunycnlcnt then;
but TIC Government llas rclInqufsllcd none of
ita Rights to- Percentage Of his largc profits
during the ten years Of tho imposition Of tho
tax, and It may be found advisable, in view Of
tho information rnatlo public concerning Ills
allnlrs, 10 instlttlte q suit for tho recovery Of
what lIn ought to have pud.
TIE DECISION.
United States Circuit Couri--lfoaddN, Sept. a5.
1Illo opinion OF tl!o Court (Judges Clifford and
HKnowlcs) upon demurrer iu tio case United
States vs.. r. g. Hazard, was delivered by tho
District Judge, as follows: -
Distris! 9f Ehods Is!dsd. Circuit Court or ths
uaHeI I,f Sia!ts-!une Term, 1S7o+-1ciion q Lam,
-QuGasluns more novel, interesting, and impor-
tant than thokc arising under tho deiu.tcts In tAn
II ' m IT, I rs os
parties secMed to have been mindful, und accord-
,ns,y T. h thSis by agreement submitted
The action IL ono of dabt, to raeoyer eli tha sum Of
FL. A. w. 1or tax on detendant's income nj.
approyta sa!sh iSS7 ii sat . At IL L.. 4s7. as III
st!t "as entered at the juno torn, 1879. Of this
Wa continued, though uot answered.. until the
G9yensf sr% tsr to1l;ynF, S'en caye ke
ssae tsee spesn sa eas UT u e e f &C.
nsyisnt i & y, t''s $'stsa'snt q tss s:.sss A.
s ossle III & Ais4hst IT, 60 Sssessst Ss, set e q
ny ipSs;sd o. account st ls tata5e t9 aks
arccial pleas tho plaintiff dctnnrs seraatim: but III
thoir briefs aud arguments tho learned counsel Of
to pa,tes troat tho 'hreo "a In facs substantially
IN support q the demurrer, tho plaintiff avers
That NC principles Of construction and decision
tsn ana ny tns Goust
arn, tho tight os action Ii till case u against tic
1t r. " ss tpss sa rsps s1M III H"4 ss to s
1t was. throughout thu csdoavor at hEa learned
counsel, and on tlso Othtr hanl to weaken md
overthrow this position Of tho plaintiff was tho Gu
dcayor Ut thu irarned counsel 1T .tl!e defendant
throughout h!a elaborate and tpEcnous urVumont,
Indeed It may 10 said Tint thu only poiat OF con.
trstAl0n presented was the correctness or SOUND.
ncss Of this proposition Of tho plaintiff, As tho
Court should fu1o upon this point i1r tho plaintiff
or tho defendant. It VIM In fact c0ucg.cd must it
sustain or override thu plAlntldh desnl,rrefsY
10 tho question thus presented tlIo Court has
given consideration, with result which renders it
unnecessary 10 rceapnlhte, Canvass or crIttclsu
the nrgulnenta OF tho learned counsel Ut either
party. IT. conclusion ID That The case aboys cited
H. az claimed by tho plaintiff, case directly In
rolnt, 10 10 construed anil respected ~ prccudont
decisive Of tho point presented controlling the &C.
tion q this Court, md compelling sustaining Of
tho PLAINTIFF IrInurrcrB. And this, too, eyen
wero tha principles embodied y tl1at precedent a.
nnaccnftant With the vIaws Of the prcsldtg Jul1go
AZ with thoso Of his assocIate Of this term. ric
comments and saggcstions oi thu learned counsel
Of tl,o defendant, IN raE4si To tho decision aud
onlnl1n Of 10Th Wallace, 1t cannot hu denied, aro
foTciRiv and persuasive ~ wull as ingenious; but
until they shall haye hoen adopted unl p1ou4ulgat.
81 Wy The Supreme Court, that opinion, In the
Judgment u this Court. Nlust 10 consttuel ~ al.
ready stated.-that H. a. necesstating tiv Hstain.
lnE OF the dcn1srcrs In this case.
---0H@--
Tho Origin Of ths Great Lukea.
A fAL.. o in