The Critic and record., 1891-04-10
THE DIRECT TAX.
CONTEND1NG OPINIONS OF THE AT.
TORNEY AND AUDITOR OF DISTRICT.

TORNEY AND AUDITOR or DISTRICT.
Assistant Attorney Thomas Holds That
the Refunded Tax Is 10 Go 60 Indivld-
ual Citizens Who Paid It-AuditOr
Petty Thinks 10 Is TO Go Into the
General, Fund Of the Dlstricts-
Their Opinions in Full.
Assistant Attorney for the District
Thomas to-day returned second opinion
upon the refunding of the direct tax. His
opinion is very long one, and he says
that after somewhat careful examina.
ton Of the questions involved, he is salts
fed that his first impressions, that
TIN MONEY SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE
INDIVIDUALS,
is correct.
Mr.. Thomas begins by saying:
Congress on August ., 1861, in order to
increase revenue to pay interest on the
public debt and for other purposes,
enacted that direct tax of S2O,OOO,0OO be
laid upon the States and Territories, to be
apportioncd according to representative
population, the quota of the District of
| Columbia being $40, 1873"
He then reviews the provisions of this
act in detail concluding with the state
ment that
THE DISTRICTS QUOTA
was paid into the Treasury from the gen
eral funds OF the corporations which at
the time formed the municipal govern
ments.
The District, in other words, assumed
and paid the tax in its own way"
After showing that the amount levied
was Sl.10 to every 500 of the assessed
| value of real estate, the attorney says:
"The contention that the direct tax
| having been assumed and paid into the
Treasury of the United States by the cor
porations of Washington and Georgetown
and the Levy Court IN, bulk out OF their
| respective general funds, individual citi-
zens Of the District have no claim on
THE MONEY
to be credited and paid to the District un-
der the act of Congress, March ., 1891, Is
too narrow, ! think, to be entertained for
| n moment,
"1f that assumption be true, the Dis
trict, as the successor of the corporations
of Washington and Georgetown and the
Levy Court, would be entitled absolutely
to the amount of the direct tax paid by
those corporations respectively, aud there
would have been no occasion for Cow
gress TO create trust fund. If the money
to be credited and paid to the District Is
not for the benefit of the individuals who
paid the tax, il was quite unnecessary for
Congress, in the refunding act, TO say that
the money to be paid to the District
SHOULD BE HELD IL TRUST
by the Commissioners for the benefit Of
these person or inhabitants from whom
they 0he direct taxes) we're collected or
their legal representatives, and that all
claims under the trust hereby created
shall be filed with the Commission
ers within six years next after the
passage of this act; that all claims not 50
filed shall be forever barred and the
money attributable thereto shall belong
y \ TO the District of Columbia, who
are the beneticiaries Of the trust hereby
created, if they he not the individuals
from whom, in effect. the direct tax was
collected and their representatives. II
there were no beneilciaries OF this fund
to be credited, and IL it go to the Distric.
in refundment Of direct taxes why consti
tute etho ommissioners trustees and impose
upon them the examination of claims 10
! the money? Trustees for whom2 III th'
money belonged to the District and was
not intended for individual citizens o
! the District and their representatives, wht
were taxed from 1864 to 1858 to reimburse
E the municipalities which advanced th'
money to pay the direct tax, il is very
singular that Congress should create {
trust and authorize the Commissioners [,
I entertain claims against the fund, giyinl
claimants six years within which to pre-
sent their claims. IL seems to me TIN
| language of the third section of the re
: funding act is so plain as to exclude an!
such idea. Again, II the Auditors con
tention be correct, this District would b
entitled to have and receive from tn
: United States $40 60l.62, that being tn
, amount of the Districts quota of the di
rect tax actually paid into the Treasury
for which IL gave no equivalent. Tn
amonnt to be credited To the Dis
trict under the act of March
, 2, 1891, would simply be
GRATuITy,
/ mere pft on the part of Congress.
will certainly not be seriously urged tina
!, Congress, with full knowledge that th
corporations of Washington, Georgetow
: and the Levy Court had been reimburse
1 by taxes levied under the act of July
E; 1864, the direct tax paid by them respect
: lively, should refund the money to tn
r District as the successor of these corpora
. tions, except to distribute il among th
, individuals and their representatives VIII
/, were taxed to reimburse the money S
: paid by the corporations to the Unite
!, States as direct taxes.
. 1T REQUIRES no ARGUMENT,
, it seems to me, to show that If this refun
!; money was not intended for the ind
u viduals who paid the reimbursement Ia
from 1864 to 1868, and their represents
tives, the District will be getting none
which does not belong TO it-mone
: which il has no legal or moral clam t
The money paid by Washington, Georg
J, town and the Levy Court to I'll
- returned to those corporations by the pc
u pie between 1864 and 1868. The none
!, collected from the people during tho
II years to reimburse said corporations f
money advanced TO pay the direct tax a.
q propriated by the District to be paid III
): not been returned TO them.
u It's said that the books of the Distri
J. show $50, ,35805 was collected from eli
J. 2eDs of Washington City alone, of whic
V $42C0i.62, the City's share of the dire
y tax, was paid over to the United State
ls and that the residue, $9.75i.3S, was co
ic cred into the general fund of the corpOr
Ie ton Of Washington, and hence it
n argued that, even If individual citizens
r the District did pay the direct tax and a
BENEFIcIARIEs UNDER THE ACr
for the refundment of direct taxes,
NJ payments can be made to them witho
~ further legislation by Congress. In 9th
~ words, the sum of $52 35S.05 having be-
III collected and only Si2,O0i.62 thereof pa
e over to the United States, and the latt
IS sum being the amount refunded, is II
rs sufficient TO pay the amount collecte
ty This position, il seems TO me,
ld not well taken. This is not d
IL case of banker refusing TO pay che,
lie because the drawer has not suiicie
an money to his credit to pay it, The 81
We plus of the reimbursement tax collect
of citizens of this District from "a to
went into the general fund of the thr
corporations advancing the direct ia
no and
-, THF PEOPLE GOT THE BENEFIT
~ of II It is presumed to have been spe
re for their use so that they have no legal