Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-06-01
GOVERNMENT rAx-rIrLEs TO LIANT.

Ef'NtNN1~ ~ 1101 Rcef.WNNSf
GOVERNMENT TAx-rIrLEs TO LANr
In our issue Of yesterday we publishet
the decision Of Judge Baxter, OF tbs
United States Circuit Court, in the case
of Surdam VS.. Love. We made this pub
LEGATION, not because Of any particular
interest 10 the case itself, but for the gen
eral interest which attaches to the class
of cases to which Il belongs, now pend
ing in the United States Courts in this
city. There are a great number Of these
cases undecided, not only at Memphis
but in all or nearly all Of the Southern
States. The law under which the tax
was levied and the lands sold for the
non,payment thereof, in the insurrec.
tionary States, was a war measure, and
designed by the government as one of a
series of measures to crush the great
rebellion. 1t sprung from and was bred
by the bitter snimosities and hatreds of
a civil war which has long since closed;
and inasmuch as the cause Of the PERM.
cious legislation no longer exists, we
think it would be highly propes to devise
some means by which its unjust effects
may be Rverted. Judge Trigg, of the
United States District Court, decided
some time since that many OF the
CAGES in which Geaeral W. J. Smith
and others we're plaintiffs could
not be maintained for the reason
that the United States Circuit Court had
no jurisdiction. This would have ended
a large number Of these cases in favor
of the landowners but for a decision of
Judge Baxter, of the United States Cir
cult Court in a similar case, to the effect
that the United States Court has juris-
diction. There is nothing left now but
to fight the cases npon their merits.
Many Of the defenses relied upon by our
citizens have never as yet been presented
to the United States Supreme Court.
These matters OF defense have been ar
gued at length before the Supreme Court
of Tennessee, and decided in favor Of
the landowners. One Of these defenses
relied upon was that while the law res
quired advertisement for four weeks to
be made in some newspaper, advertise
ment was in fact made only in a supple
ment of the Memphis Bulletin, all Of the
supplements being issued within ten
days time, and onlya very limited mum.
Der Of these supplements we're publish.
ed. 1t has been decided BY the
Supreme Courts Of New York,
Kentucky and Tennessee that
tax sales made in pursuance of such an
advertisement are totally void. 1t is
contended by the plaintiffs in these
cases, however, that no such defence can
be made to these iron clad tax titles.
But the United States Supreme Court, in
the case Of Cooley VS.. 0'Connor, II
Wallace, SOL, intimsted that such a de-
fence might be made. Another defence
upon which our citizens rely, and which
is peculiar to the cases pending here is,
that none Of the real estate situate in
Memphis was, in fact, subject to the tax,
because the same ives to be levied only
where an entire State, district or county
should be brought within the jurisdic.
ton and under the authority OF the
United States troops. Now, it is a fact
well known, that only a very small por.
ton of Shelby county was under the
authority Of the United States troops
not even was this the case when Forrest
was about. The Supreme Court of Ten.
nessee, in the case OF Buck vs. Williams,
has decided both of these matters in
favor Of the land owners and against
the tax title, but as the final decision
rests in another tribunal the cases are
still undetermined. Although the tax
was levied and advertisement made 10
1864. yet the entire assessment as to des.
cription of property, the names oil the
owners, etc was taken from the assess.
ments Of 1860. This Of course rendered
the assessments and descriptions of pro.
perty and the names of the owners in
many if not most instances entirely in.
correct. Under the ordinary tai laws a
title acquired under such circumstances
as these would not stand for a moment.
In one instance the tax assessors for the
State Of South Carolina made a new
division Of their own for the town Of
Beaufort, s. c., dividing it into blocks
and lots, assessed the tax upon the same
and advertised aud sold. 1t would be
taxing ones e~redulity too much
to say that an advertisement Of
property, by a description in.
vented for the particular occasion,
would be notice to the owner and public
in general of what property was offered
for sale. The case Of Surdam VS.. Love,
Of which a report appeared in yester
days LEDGER, was prosecuted by
Mr.. Surdam and defended by Mr.. James
II. Malone. The decision for defendant
certainly appears just, and it is hoped
that the courts throughout Tennessee,
Mississippi and other Southern States
will be also impartial in the decisions of
the causes brought before them.
EARL RUSSELL.