Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1879-01-28


that Congress might properly lnit III, !igh OF
redemption to the oWner 10 person, While It
could not constitutionay prohibit payment Ct
The tax BY On agent before the sale. say that
it was cot necessary for tho court to resort to
this higher ground in deciding BeuIott rs
Hunter, but from the tenor and spirit OF is
language, am persuaded that tho proposition
was 10 its mind that Congress had 10 power to
restrict the owner of land in paying Inc lax.
to payment in his own proper person.
In the case Of TGcey ". ltwIo, IS Wallace
SAG, the tax sale of The land hal been n!ato to
private purchaser under the first quoted
clause ef section seven. ln that ease 20 tender
of the tax had been made by Twins sgent.-
The language of the record on this :a!n! II TIE
courts finding of the facts is:
"Whil:t the said premises, however. W>ra
advertised for sale, his Twins brother n L"
| went to the Office Of the commissioners to $t@
! after the payment OF the tao on lha property,
| hut made no formal offer or tender Of payment,
because such offer or tender waa ~ effect,
waived by said commissioners, they dcc,iulne
to recognize any tender. unless maize " Tic
owner in proper persoo."
This case differed frol that OF Bearct: e.
Hunter, 10 the fact that there IVES no tcnaer CT
the tax to the tax commissioners b. The friend
or agent Of the oRnsr. The owuer' brother io
law merely went to see attcr the payment u
the tax, but made 90 forma! otTer or tsuicT c!
it, that beiog virtually waived ~ tire conni3
sioners in declining to recognize any tcodcT Va
less made by theoTner ID proper perso::. Jlis
ing from the language o. the Court The decision
10 that case, as read IVES bascd, nat mercy on
the presumption that 80 otter would haya ten
made but for the refusal to rtc5gEZ9 tenG-E bl
an agent in that particular lnsalce but wa 599.d
also on the fact that it was the rule aud prac.lc3
OF the commissioners so 20 reln.e. tnidG a
careful and unbiased reading D! the dac!slo9 ia
Tacsy vs. Irwin leads TO tic io;v.tab!c cocv.c
viction that it was based chl fly on the existence
of that rule and practice, and BIZ: pictia!Iy, il at
all, on suoh declarations OF tho 'o5goinissloncr;
Oh tho occasion when 1rHiu's brother 10 Ia7
called ito see about paying the tag," q dc
TERED him from making q iorGl:i .cuGc-. bGt
| Thick the higher principle Ga Which b.tl! ct
the deciso.s uadcr rt1i:W Stro made WIS,
that the language quoted 10 section ScUeil, ia
plying requirement that the o9ncr should pay
the tax in person, vas o7erriddcn By the Superior
principle Of constitutional laT, The. CJGsre:a
had DO right in le7yiug tax Ter puTEojea .;
revenue, to impose disabilities Or. dcG0lGco
penalties for political c0udGc:, thsraoy cnn7trt'
iug revenue lays into in;trun lti tGr Indirectly
ooufscatiog that entire estate in Lard which the
constitution fo.tiis Congress trcc coo'is.a;ilg
by direct LAYS.
But whatever view might ha7o ben 10 th3
mind OF the Court, Bynae!t ". HGoteg, am
lacey VI. lrsin, were CASKS arcvaE lands
which were sold under that provision @! seo'i1
seren. which expressly gave arlucily 20 s2.i i.
all cases where the o9acrs md not appeared IL
person before tho commissioners anl paid tho
Tax. The Court decided that s-:S !;;j eXprl s-'y
authorized we're nevertheless void When IL"
owners had through friends or aacGiS tcndlt,l!
paymelt OF the tax and lhaj ha law a5I.j
presume that oyncr5 were !caoy 10 make ctis :
Il payment Ey r!icGdS OK agclis Il sncil CliiI
had oct been renGc!td aIgs:e:g 10 ai7auco b.
rule and practice Of the commissioners 70 -
c.irc the lax only tt0m oTltri IA peTs!n. II.
therefore, sales expressly au.hG;iz,d uy Gn9
language OF s.ctlGn ScrcA Terc VOID, thcu :cf y
stronger reason vas the sall Ct hElrIjGH :aij,
which c:u!d not, ss1 coGc!iTa, have 14cu m2iC
uCder this clause OF section @EcA, aDpaIcGiy
co1iaining such express authority, hu; .sas
made under scolher clause ct that section ~Eish
lands rs the President should Gl.cc! 20 DC pur-
CHASED for military, educational CIR kiadrcd
purp.s,s, without Icfcreuc, 10 whether or not
the oT1cr bad offered to pay tho tax b7 q
FREUD or agent. II the principle On which the
Supreme Court decided The saos OF Hunter 5
aud Twin 3 lands 10 be void, wis SO s:r3ng as
10 override express language authorizing them,
found 10 tie law, il c2rtal0Iy nay be tG!iG1ed in
the present c,sa, where he land was s0Id under
provision which in terms gave 30 authority 10
sell lands OF p:rSors WHO lad G0t appeared ia
pcrscn TO pay the tax.
| Garnet aGrcc with defendants cpan=ai 10
the opinion that tho two clauses n scc.l2a
Scren, orc ct them authorizing saics % both
government and private persons, EuS IL.
strclpg the g0Vcrrmcut 10 bids not caccediDE
two thirds the assessed value CT the lands; ord
the other clause directing the sale CT lands to
the u aited States without restriction o. pr!oa
when the President ordered taer purchase
for certain purposes, as both governing IN such
sales as that Of Arlington. J. thl0k the clauses
arc distinct and several, each @! theED authcrZ
iog sales which could rot have been made IN
der the other The sale OF airing tou coud not
have been made under the r.ior ceu.o # SEC
ton SeveM. because il was not made 20 private
persou, nor made to tho Uoi!cd States 1t q
price less than two thirds OF is assessed vauc.
How, therefore, could beth clauses have g0g-
erucd in this sale? The lapeuigc cf tic rror
clause imposing disabilities as 70 the payment
of'tbc lax By restricting the rght 10 oRrLts 10
person. is for that reason to be c)os;EueG s.gc..
ly; is 10 BIO given as limited aD application az
possible; and is not unnecessarily 10 % extend
| cd to other clauses Of s:c:ion Stccn.
Bat even if this rule Of construction did not
govern, do not thiuS that the language 81 tie
clause authorizing The sale CT the lands Of all
oWuers who had not appeared il person aai
paid their taxes, could, by any logical cGasl!uc
ton, be extended to the other ciaus,s u section
seren. This clause is 40 independent provs
ion, not found 10 the original law, net Necessary
to the sense OF aug other psrt Of TIC law either
10 its original or present t31m, Eot cocuected
gramnatically or 10 log;cll COURSE Ct th0ush5
With The context, but inttriscted Into " placo
in the section 20 better suited to is admiS:icn
thar any other place; a1d hayioc every charac
telisic of piece OF patch work. d not
think il has apy c31trol over the other
clause staLdipg ct Gistalca ff0n il 10 section
sercn, under which Arliof;on was soid aad
| do rot think that the theory ct deIgEd4oti
counsal that the TWO clauses apply iosgPa'a5Iy
| to all GALES is tenable.