The Critic and record., 1891-04-10

appropriated out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to reimburse
each State, Territory and the District of
Columbia for all money found due to
them under the provisions of this act.
Beginning with the thirteenth line Of
the same section, referring TO the second
class, 10 is provided "1hat where the
sums, or any part thereof, credited to- any
state, Territory or the District of Coluni-
hia, have been collected by the United /
States from the citizens or inhabitants |
thereof, or any other person, either di-
rectly or by sale of property such sums |
shall be held i'm trust by such State, Ter |
ritory or the District of Columbia for the |
benefit of those persons or inhabitants |
from whom they were collected, or their |
legal representatives"
The distinction between these two |
classes of beneIiciaries is marked, aud |
must, upon reflection, be apparent. The |
act of August o. 1861, levying the direct
tax apportioned it among the States and
Territories and the District of Columbia,
States that were loyal TO the Government
formally assumed the tax, as the law pro-
Vided, and paid their quotas In enGrety to-
the Treasurer Of the United States, an
then reimbursed their treasures, not by
the levy of an Independent tax, but by in
cludng an amount sufficient for rem
nual levy. The District apportionment of
the S20,O00,000 levied amounted to Sl0,-
1878, and was paid into the Treasury
from the general funds of the corporations
which at the time formed the municipal
governments.
The act OF the Washington City Councils
of August II, 1864, levying the taxes for
1864 provided for a tax of S1.10 upon every
500 of assessed valuation, stipulating that
40 cents shall be set apart for the general
fund, 10 cents for public schools, . cents
for sChOol-houses 10 cents for metropol-
itan police, and 10 cents for reimburse
ment of amount paid to the United States
Government under the act of August .,
1861 The act of August ., 1865, levying
the taxes for Washington City for 1865,
also provided that out of a general levy of
81 upon every s100 of assessed valuation
cents be set apart for the same purpose,
making a total reimbursement tax for the
two years Of IL cents on the 800.
think it can be demonstrated with rea-
sonable certainty that no one in the Dis
trict of Columbia paid the "drect tax, as
such, to the United States, but of course
every property-owner who paid taxes for
1864 and 1865 paid TO the corpOration-not
to the United States-his propOrtionate
share of the reimbursement fund. The
difference between payments Co the United
States and the District Of Columbia must
he kept in mind, because il is Just here
| that the law of March ., 1891, makes the
distinction between the benefciaries 20
which ] have referred. The loyal States
and the District Of Columbia, acting under
| the law of August ., 1861 as stated, as
| sumed the amount of the tax levied against
| them and paid It in bulk into the Treasury
of the United States, thus rendering un-
| necessary the appointment of Federal col
lection agents, but in the 'insurrectionary
| the law, and the tax was therefore levied
! directly upon and collected from individ-
uals by United States direct tax commits
sioners, who paid the amounts thus coli
leoted Immediately into the United States
| Treasury.
In these latter cases carefully prepared
lists, as provided in the law, were trans
| mitted 10 the accounting officers of the
| Treasury, and the sums collected were
deposited with the Treasurer of the United
States, so that every proper claim eau be
easily established by reference to the files
of the Treasury. In the case Of the Dis.
trict Of Columbia, however, there is moth
ing in the archives of the Treasury TO
show the payment Of the direct tax, ~
beyond the bare statement of the fact, in
a single account of less than dozen lines,
that by two covering warrants, respect
lively, July o, 1896, for S6, S32.7l, and No
vember 8, 1866, for S42,604.62, the total
sum of $40, ,437.3 .33 was paid by the District
I'm full settlement of its quota as appOr-
toned under the act of August 5, 1861.
ltseems clear to me beyond question
that the first clause of section OF the act
of March ., 1891, requires the return to
the States, Territories and the District
of Columbia of the amounts paid by them
in bulk, and that the second clause, be-
ginning with line IS, provides for the
| return to individuals of the amounts col
lected directly from them by the United
States. In the latter case, as before stated,
the tax payer would have the receipt Of
the United States Commissioner, which
would be all the voucher needed for re
fund. Citizens of the District, however,
can have nothing but the ordinary nIu
nicipal tax receipt given by the collector
of the corporation. do not believe that
a single receipt for the direct tax" alone
paid to United States official, can bt
found as having been paid in the District
of Columbia.
There is a widespread popular misap
prehension upon the subject, however, a:
quite large number of income tax anC
internal revenue receipts have beer eX
hibited to me by citizens who confounC
them with the direct or war tax of Angus
8, 1861. Mr.. Smith, whose letter is thu
occasion of this report, holds paper pur
porting to be receipt for United State
direct tax, but il contains also the levy fo
the Metropolitan Police fund, and L
signed by the collector of the late corpora
tion of the Levy Court, proving that th'
money was paid into the treasury o
the county instead of that OF the Unite'
| States.
If, however in the face of these facts
, could be shown that the money in ques
J ton ought to be returned TO the Distric
property holders who paid the tax levie'
, | for 1864 and 1865 there would still be tn
barrier of an insufficient appropriation
+ The act of Congress of July /, 1861, whicl
directed the three governing corporation
; | then existing in the District of Columbi
to levy this tax, provided that all owe
[ and above the amount apportioned whicl
might be realized should be paid into tn
/ general fund for ordinary expenses of tn
t ! municipality.
: books in this office, was collected from th
citizens of Washington City, Of whic
$ Si2, ,G0l.62, as the city's quota Of the Dis
t triCt levy. was paid over to the Unite
G States, and the residue of 50, 75i.33 covere
into the general fund of the corporation
II is plain therefore that further apprC
priation would need to he made If, in COZ
:. temptation of the law of March >, 1891,
,, were intended to refund to individuals i
the District of Columbia the amount
= = paid by them as a reimbursement tax.
! In the light of all the facts, | am led
! the conclusion that the amount appropr
!, ated by the act of March ,, 1891, as r,
. payment to the District of Columbia, b
, longs to the Government and not to II
: dividuals.
: WEST WASHINGTON.
> 70 Judge from the way in which Il
e.