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

Tho decisions in Beana!! vs. Hunter and Ts.
ceY vs. Irwin were Intended 10 defGe the rights
| Of cyFrais Of lads assessed with taxes, during
| ths p.r:ci anterior to tie Tax ISLES. The hrs!
| decision distinguished be.Tc,n tho rights OF
Land owner before the tax sale, and his rights
si.er tee sale. It held that, as the object OF the
I law urdcr review was to raise taxes ard not to
iaact penalties for political conduct, It must be
construed with reference TO and IN aid OF that
object Il held that an owner OF lsEed land hsd
a right to psy the taxes duo through trlend or
AGENT before sale; snd the Chief Justice, re-
neat, Disseminated between this right OF paying
tares By sn agent, and the absence OF the right
70 redeem lands after their sale for taxes except
in PERSON. Those decisions establish the right OF
any owrer Of land, taxable under tho laws OF
Cobgre;s Imposing direct taxes, to pay the tax
y friend or s2ert at snJ time before the tax
sale.
Ii the owner had this right TO tender or otlar
pay rcnt OF o tea through q friend or agent at
s1y time before sale, and the right. was denied
kim, then il is difficult TO see how g subsequent
sale 10 particular purchaser could, BY er post
jnr'o snd penal opers!ion annul that right. A
Las which makes such discrimination would
ecen 70 BE- unconstitutional, not only in giving
10 IN at performed by Government officials un-
Ger IL, hn CT post Jacto srd penal effect; but
also in deprivlng person OF bis vested right IN
property By process Ohio. than due process
q Law" Is that Phrase is used By the constltu.
,ica. Che impolcy OF such provision OF law
i; as obvious to me as its unconstitutionaity. Its
| evil would ba liable to fall not only upon dis
legal hui upon the most loyal citizens a severe
Illness, lasting only ninety or hundred days,
, would subject the owner OF land 10 the ire
cl2mHbe io:g OF its possession and Of all buttWo
3 thirds OF its value for the period Of advertise
gaa2t added TO tho sixty days allowed by tho act
.or redemption. would require an il ness Of loss
than l. hundred dsys t2 dlvcst citizen of his
estate.
We can imagine, too a case Of even grosser injus
, tec, which might happen by accident, though my
respect for the Government forbids me to think it
could be morally possible by design. 1t might hap
pen b. accident that Government, desiring piece Of
land belonging to loyal citizen engaged in its mill.
tary ScrTico, light in time of order his COM
mand to distant and prCracted service, rendering
it impossible for him "to appear in person before the
tax commissioners and pay the amount of his tax,
and thereby Ing a sale Of it for taxes, at which
sale il would i!sef have tho power obtain the land
!rcc!ln.aby. The familiar expcdient employed by
King David towards Uriah would here be repeated
2 by accident. l doubt tho constutionality Of any
provision CT law COR raising revenues which would
. suhec! to forfeiture lands upon which the taxcs
: when rendered behalf Of the owner would by its
own erua b. prohibited from being received. law
passed for raising taxes if containing provisions in
hctirg, without trial. disabilities and penalties for
political conduct, in defeat Of revenues would be
construed by any curt literally in aid Of the provi.
s!0ls Tor raising rcTcnucs and very narrowly as to
the provisions inf citing penalties in dofeat of revc-
MUGS. think may construc tho decisions of the
Supreme Court, in the two cases which have been
cited, rs gong to tie extent of holding that the
Of land assessed for taxes under tho laws OF
lSG2-G3 might pay them, or tender or offer to pay
them, through an agent 1t any time before the tax
SALE as against all purchasers, whether private ndi.
1duals or the United Sta -. therefore feel bouad
20 refuse the Instruction No. pra I'd for by defend
ants couascl.
s Or the Other hand, on tbs authority of the dcci
| ci0 nj Suorpm rf in
:: ard Tacey W. irwin rendered upon the proceeding
Gf the commissioners sold Arlington, and
y the validity of whose certificate of sale is now i'm
> peacned the grounds rs were relied upon IN
, thoaC eases, feel not only authorized, but bound to
cTe the two instructions asked 70. By the plaintiff.
= they in taesc Words
: INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
J. II the jury believe from the evidence that Philip
+ r. Fcnd0ll, for and on behalf Of the owner of The
property in controversy proc to the sole thereof Of
: the tax commissioners, on tho llth day OF January
1861, offered to pay tho amount chargcablc on said
property, under the act Of Congress entitled "AE ac
Tor tho collection of direct taxes in insurrcctonary
districts within the United State, and for other pur
, pOses,' approved June 1th 1862, and tho acts amen
c da DRY thereof: and that said Iner refused b.
. said commissioners because it not made by the
:, ! owner in ncrssa then said salo unauthorized
:, and conferred no title upon the purchaser.
2. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the
Il commissioners, prior to January 1l,h, 1861, estab
rule, under which they refused to receive, prop
t crty which had been advertised for sale from any
Ole but the owner or party in interest," IN person.
when olTci cd the amount charscabc upon SAID prop
crty, By OF said acts of Congress, then said
rule dispensed with the necessity OF 3 tender, and
5 in abscIcc Of proof to the contrary the law pre-
, Sa:ncs that said amount would have been paid, ant
the Court insructs the jury that upon such state
: Of facts tho sale OF the property in controversy
me- 10 the said lth day of January, lSGl was un
th,,, aho,
'Ihc 0piulcn vas very attcnllvcly listened t
, ~ he bar and spectators.
. IL is conclusion Judge Robertson read {
! s.ats rons ifGm the Treasury Department show
cS tbs a!uouGt Of l8See, 90, due on nc Ar
ltda:Gn @atalc .moao:iog to $207.lT. Lie saiC
! that c2ucs:i on bota sides had agreed TO cub
= Lit be sfaiCMcat to the Court and abide by IL
, !cc!sio0 aa 70 what AMOUNT should b. paid
::,a statement GJnta;ned various items OF taxes
!, latrIcs;, pcusIileG aba costs. some Of which TIT
= Plaintiff did net t!,iuE should be charged 10 TIL
. case. lie real thc am on The subject OF !ay
sa.rs.
. I'll. Ecu:! decided that tho iotcrcst at Ter
per cg9t, should bc charged UP 10 the day Of
sale AID six lcf ceGf. thereafter.
Judge Wi!arShoy reserved d. exception t
The illng ct The Court o. the lustru,.ior3 Of
inat; and be charge riVeu.
Judge Robertson Ha!d this WAS not charge
: 10 The Jury.
Judge N;iIi0ushbg said the jarg beard the
Instructions read.
, The Court said il was merely an assigning CT
rcgs0Gs Tor his decision ard not :. charge.
judge Robertson sad :he Ucu1acl should have
hat the jury sent out, if he objected to their
hca5!cs the reasons.
JUICE Wi5l0Egh5y desired to tx,ops 10 the
| I'D -, Il,
the U0urt-You sill have to get panig-
Lau5 10 coupe! Lla 10 sign such an exception.
Ii Hs5 agreed thu! Instructions Nos. aod !
OF Tie dcteCdauS be granted They refer to
:. thI cH:tlicats ns bcioR c7deGca ofthc regularity
ofsa'o and 20 be iutcrercd With only by evidence.
The Court suggested that two Instructions OF
thc deieudaats wcro identica AID that others
might be consolidated so as to simplify them.
Judge iii!oughby read his obstruction No.
g. Which holds that the practice Of the comuis
si1acTs after the sale OF the Arlington cs.atc,