The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-01-20
EX-GOVERNOR TILDENs INCOME TAX.

AN ARGUMENT BEFORE JUDGE BLATcHFoRD
ON DEMURRER TO THE GOVERNMENT COM.
PLANT.
In the United States District Court yesterday be-
fore Judge Blatchord there was an argument in the
case Of the United States s. j. Tilden a dcmur-
rer TO the complaint OF the government suit conn.,
menced against the defendant 10 recover income tax
for the year 1861 10 the amount OF $4,000 United
States District Attorney woodiord and Mr. Roger
Sherman appeared for the government; Mr.. VAN
derpoel and Mr. Thomas Harland FOR the defendant
Mr.. vanderpoel. In opening the argument said that
the avermsnts IN the first count IN the complaint
were Of tho most vague and general character. and
tnas they were such us could with the and
proprety be preferred against any citizen In uu-
verified pleading Tho defendant tho only person
upon whom 1t had ever been attempted to impose or
from whom 1t had been attempted collect this
tax for tho year 1861. No had paid dollar
OF It, The executive officers who allowed this SUIT TO
DO presented, the District Attorney whose name
subscribed to the capias nstitutng the and the
gentleman now hoidng that high oihcc paid
cent oil income TAX Tor that year. and had never been
u Ken to; and he might venture the assertion that
alter the npse OIL sixteen years they never expected
by District Attorney on tho dny preceding his re-
tirement from that Office 10 commence TINS action.
Inc Cour,-Realy. Mr. vanderpoe. Is II necessary
to address to mo any political speecbes--inero bun
kumY Do address yourself to tho facts.
Mr.. Vanderpoei apoiogized hut SAID that he thought
II necessary bring before tho attention OF the Court
the fact that Mr. Tiden tho only person against
whom SUIT had been brought and that he thought IL
womb surprise any TO hear all counts
IN the declaration utterly without foundation In
iact Under the law Of 1881 no officers wcrc APP
pointed by the government 10 assess or collect tho
tax and on the LIST OF July, 1852, before any attempt
had been made collect II, the sections OF
the law authorizing It 10 be imposed repealed by
Congress II was clear, therefore, that no right OF
on TO collect this tax ever vested la the govern
ment II never was assessed. IL never became due
or payable. There was no deauit IN ITS payment.
Mr.. Vanderpoei then quoted u number OF authori-
ties, anu after short reply by Mr. sherman and
rcjoinder by Mr. Hariand, Judge Blatcnord sustained
the demurrer as lar the frat count the CON-
plant Tor the tax OF 1861 was concerned.
District Attorney Woodford then opened his argu-
men In reference 10 the remaining counts Of the
paint which charge that the defendant failed 10 pay
1854; on June 80, 1856. $40 600; on June 80, 1885,
$33 800; April 80, 1857 So, $50; April So 1885,
s62l5; on April 80. 1859, $6,625; on April 80,
1870, $35,5J0; on April 80. 1871, Sl3sS7; on
April 80, 1872, $4,000, and the government
also demand ntcresI thereon Mr. Woodford claimed
that the government had the light make assess
ment independent OF the action OF the assessors aud
that the Statute OF Limitations not applicable IN
the case OF the government In support oil this posi-
lion he quoted number OF authorities, both Amer.
lean ana English. He claimed that the Supreme
Court decision In the Dollar Savings Bank GOV
srned the present one and that u sustained tho Above
mentioned points
Mr.. vanderpoel commenced his reply ON behalf Of
tho remainder OF the argument would DO heard next
Sail