The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-10-09

,iurent fund OF the bank was properly
toxable The United states thereupon
brought n suit TO recover the tax whicn IL
wss now sad should have been paid be-
tween 1867 and 1872.
Tbere were two questions before the |
eunreme Court In this case. First, were
the banks undistributed earnings liable to |
IN AVIATION Mt all? II was held that they |
were. but this does not affect Mr.. HAZARDS |
case. Secondly, was an action Of debt |
mointainable by the Government for the |
recovery OF the tax?
The late BENJAMIN II. CURTIS, himself
previously Justice Of the Supreme Court,
argued for the bank that IL was not. The
Internal Revenue act under which the
bank was taxable, IL at all, provided
certain penalty for its neglect or refusal to
mike return Hereunder. and directed
how the penalty should be collected, very
much as the provisions in regard to the
income tax allowed the imposition OF the
additional fifty per cent. when no return
| was made Now, the imposition OF q
| penalty 10 q recognized method or collect
| ing taxes, and is classified among legal
| remedies Just as much rs suit Is. lt1sa
| rule Of the common law, contended Mr.
| CURTIS. that where statute creates q
right, such rs the right to collect speci-
fed tax. and provides particular remedy
| for its enforcement, such as the imposition
Of a penalty, that remedy Is the only one
which can be adopted. The Supreme Court
admitted that this rule is applicable to In
dividuals, but denied that it applies to the
action Of the Government. A tax collector,
| a. ~ tUht hn
remedy pointed out in the statute. but not
so the United States. " II Is familiar
principle" said Mr.. Justice STRONG, " that
the King is not bound by any act Of Par
lament, unless he be named therein by
special and particular words. The rule
thus settled respecting the British Crown
is equally applicable to this Government,
and it has been applied frequently in the
different States, and practically In the
Federal courts. IL may be considered as
settled that so much of the royal preroga-
tives rs belonged TO the King in his capa-
oity of pdrcns pdt1fo, or universal trustee,
enters as much into our political state rs
IL does into the principles OF the British
Constitution"
On this point the Court cited curious
case which occurred in New York Atty
wears ago. A judgment was obtained ny
the people of the State against an attorney
for certain fees. He was imprisoned upon
this judgment after he had been dis
charged under the act then in force to
abolish imprisonment for debt in certain
= cases. He applied 10 be liberated on the
ground that this law provided in unqnali-
. fed language that the debtor, after COM
!" pliance with it's requirements, shoult
o thereafter be exempt from Imprisonment
" by reason Of any debt or debts. The OLE
Supreme Court Of this State. however
-" held that the People were not bound by al
act Of this kind unless named In II, an
- that it did not affect debts due them. l
y would be interesting TO know whether IN
old right to imprison for debt still exist
, here in behalf of the People, rs this de
cision would indicate, unless they are eS
!, pres.ly mentioned in the later statutes.
internal revenue tax was maintained bot
~, Independently OF the statute and under i
no But admitting the full force of this d,
,s cision, does ii necessarily follow that aftt
No. the Government has enforced one remed
as successfully and collected all that IL trie
to collect, by means of the statutory pro
NlblOn Tue Imposition OF u
4. can still proceed, and adopting anothe
T., and a different remedy, attempt 10 collec
:, morel An important distinction will b
- noticed between Mr.. HAZARDS case an
-, that of the bank. The penal provision G
the Internal Revenue act had never bee
enforced against the bank, while Nj
HAZARD on the other hand, had paid tn
- full penalty prescribed for not making tn
required return OF his income. All tina
~ the Dollar Savings Bank case decides o.
~ this point is that where no penalty ha
-, been collected, the Government is not re
stricted to that method of compelling pay
ment of the tax, but may sue for It,
:, does not decide that the Government ca
adopt both remedies in the same cas-,
~ The question whether IL can or not Is
= new one, and will be clearly presented b
70 Mr. HAZARDS appeal. The prevailin
- opinion among members OF the RhOd
- Island bar is that the decision of the Cir
70 cult Court will be, and at all events ough
TO be- reversed.
~ Ii should be noticed that two of Ill
"a Judges of the Supreme Court, FIELD an
q BRADLEY, dissented from the opinion q
il. the majority in the Dollar Savings Ban
~ case, on the ground that the tax sued f.
In had never been entered on the assessmeu
10 roll. like objection certainly exists i
ar favor OF Mr.. HAZARD, for the enhance
ar tax now sought to be recovered was nevt
e. actually assessed against him. Again, &
tho time the decision was made the 81
7 preme Court was without a Chief Justice
r SO il is not improbable that at least tire
as Of the Judges will be disposed to distir
~ guish between the Dollar Savings Ban
ia case and Mr.. HAZARDS. That the whol
ID Court can readily do go, we think we hay
a already shown.
of
10 False Friends of The Mammal