Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-04-03
THE DIRECT TAX.
Auditor Petty's Response TO the References
% the Commissioners on the subject.

Auditor Pesty's Response 10 the References
q the Oommissioners on the Subject.
Some days ago, as stated at the time In TEE
SrAR. the Commissioners received letter from
Mr.. j. H. Smith inclosing . copy Of the direct
tax act and requesting his quota Of H. The
matter, Il Will be remembered, was sent to the
attorney for the District for opinion and Assist
ant Attorney Thomas advised that the Commits
sioners should FIRST ascertain the aggregate Of
the tax collected from citizens OF the District
and then make reQuisition therefor on the
treasurer Of the United States. The matter
was then submitted 10 the auditor OF the Dis
trict for his opinion and suggestions Today
be Alled his answer, in which he says:
II seems clear TO me beyond question that
the first clause Of section Of the act Of March
2, 1881, requires the return 70 the states terri
tories and the District of Columbia OF the
amounts paid BY them in bulk, and that
the second clause, beginning with line
y. provides for the return to in
dtviduals Of the amounts collected directly
nom them BY the United stases- In the latter
case, - before stated, the taxpayer would have
the receipt Of the United States commits
sioner, which would be ali the
voucher needed for . refund. Citi-
zens Of the District, however can have nothing
but the ordinary municipal Tux receipt given
believe that single receipt for the ''direct tax
alone. paid 10 . United States official. can be
found - having been paid in the District Of
Columbia. There is a widespread popular
miaPprehension upon the subject how
ever, ss quite . large number Of income
tax and internal revenue receipts have
been exhibited 10 me by citizens who con-
found them with the direct or war tax Of
August 8, 1881. Mr.. Smith, whose letter is the
occasion Of this report holds a paper pur:.
States direct tax, but it contains also
the levy for the metropolitan police
fund, and b signed by the collector OF the
lase corporation Of the Levy court proving
that the money was paid into the treasury OF
the county instead of that Of the United States.
II, however, in the face of these facts IL
could be shovn that the money in question
ought to be returned to the District prop
erty holders who paid the tax levied for 1864
and 1865, there would still be the barrier OF an
Insufficient appropriation. The act Of
Congress Of July 1, 1864, which
existing In the District OF Columbia to levy
this tax, provided that all over and above the
amount apportioned which might be
realized should be paid into the
general fund for ordinary expenses
shown by the books in this Office, was collected
from the citizens Of Washington city, Of
which SO, 6ot62, as the city's quota
OF the District levy, was paid over to
the the United States and the residue
OF SO covered into the general fund Of
the corporation. II is plain therefore that q
fnrther appropriation would need to be made
II, In contemplation Of the law OF March 2, 1891,
II were intended to refund to individuals in
the District Of Columbia the amounts paid by
them as q reimbursement tax.
In the light of all the facts am led to the
conclusion that the amount appropriated by
the act Of March 2, 1891, as q repay ment to the
District Of Columbia belongs to the govern
ment and not to Individuals
In order that the question may be passed
upon by the accounting officers Of the gov
eminent have the honor to suggest that
requisition for the amount appropriated
be made upon the honorable Secre-
tary Of the Treasury, coupled with The
statement that il il 10 be credited to the Dis
trict general fund, the Commissioners, as the
only authorised legal representatives OF the
Distric. Of Columbia, accepting the trusts i'm
posed by the Law. Very respectfully,
J. +. PETTY, Auditor, D. c.