Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-04-10
THF REFUNDED DIRECT TAX.
Assistant Attorney Thomas Reasons That
Individual Taxpayers Are Entitled 70 1t.

THE DIRECT TAX.
Assistant Attorney Thomas Reason. That
Individual Taxpayers Are Entitled to 1t.
Assistant Attorney for the District s. T.
Thomas today submitted to the Commissioners
a supplemental opinion the direct tax
He saws that after a somewhat careful examina-
ton Of the questions involved he is satisfied
that his first impressions contained in a COM
munication dated March II are correct. He
then goes into q history Of the case, and saws:
The contention that the direct tax having
been assumed and paid into the treasury of the
United States b. the corporations of Washing
ton, Georgetown and the levy court in bulk out
of their respective general funds, individual
citizens Of the District have no claim on the
money to be credited and paid to the District
OF Columbia by the Secretary of the Treasury
under the act Of Congress approved March 2
1881, entitled AN act to credi. and pay to the
several states and territories and the District
OF Columbia all moneys collected under the
direct tax levied by the act of Congress ap-
proved August 8, 1851" is too narrow, think,
10 be entertained for a moment
WHAT CONGRESS PROVIDED
III that assumption be true the District Of
Columbia, as ths successor of the corporations
o. Washington, Georgetown and the levy
court, would be entitled absolutely 20 the
amount Of the direct tax paid by those corpora
tons respectively, and there would then have
been no occasion for Congress, by the act OF
March 2. 1891, to create a trust fund If the
money to be credited and paid to the District
IL not fo- the benefit of the individuals who
paid the tax il quite unnecessary for Con-
gress. in the Iefunding act to say that the
money 10 be paid to the District should lie held
In trust by the Commissioners 'tOr the benefit
OF those persons or inhabitants from whom
they (the direct taxes) wore collected or their
legal representatives" and that AL claims
under the trust hereby created shall be filed
with - the Commissioners Of the Dis
trict of Columbia within six yearh
next after the passage of this act; that all
claims not filed shall be forever barred anu
the money attributable thereto shall belong
to the District Of Columbia Who
are the beneiciaries OF the trust hereby
created if they be not the individuals from
whom, in effect. the direct tax collected
and their representatives! II there were no
benefciaries of this fund to be credited and
paid 10 the District in refundment of direct
taxes, why Constitute the Commissioners
trustees and impose upon them the examina-
ton Of claims to the money? Trustees for
whom? IL the money belonged to the District
and was not intended for individual citizens OF
the District and their representatives, who
were taxed from 1864 to 1865 to reimburse the
municipalities which advanced tine money to
pay the direct tax, 1t Is very singular that Con
gress should create a trust and authorize the
Commissioners To entertain Claims against the
fund. giving claimants SIX years within which
10 present their claims IL seems 20 ME the
language of the third section of the refund
ment act is plain as to exclude any such
idea Again, IL the auditors contention be
correct. this District would be entitled to have
and receive from the United States AZ. 604. 81.
that being the amount of the Districts quota OF
the direct tax actually paid into the treasury,
for which IL gave no equivalent. The amount
10 be credited to the District under the act of
March ,, 1891, would SIMPLY be gratuity-a
mere gift on the part Of Congress. 1t will GER
taialy not be seriously urged that Congress,
with full knowledge that the corporations of
Washington, Georgetown and the levy court
had been reimbursed by taxes levied under the
acts or July 1, 1864, the direct tax paid by
them respectively, should refund the money
to the District the successor of those cor
Iorations, except 70 distribute 1t among the in
dividuals and their representatives who were
taxed to reimburse the money so paid by said
corporations 10 the United States as direct
tales-
DOUBLE PAYMENT.
Ii requires no argument. il seems to me. to
show that if this refund money was not in
tended for the individuals who paid the reim-
bursement tax from 1861 to 1868 and their rep
rC-entatives the District will be getting money |
which does not belong 10 it. money which it
has no legal or moral claim to. The money
paid by Washington, Georgetown and levy |
court to the United States for direct taxes was
returned to those corporations by the people |
DcbWGtA loOt l-Oo Inc money COltClcl
from the people during those years to reim-
burse said corporations for money advanced to
pay the direct tax appointed by the District to
be paid has not been returned 70 them.
1t Is said that the books of the District show
that s52, 355. 95 collected from, citizens of
Washington city alone, of which s42. 6O4.62, the
eity's share Of the direct tax. was paid over to
the United States and that the residue,
s9.I4. 81, was covered into the general fund of
the corporation Of Washington, and hence it is
ual hat f,,slfv cit oftl IL.
District did pay the direct tax and are bene-
neisries under the act for the refundment Of
direct taxes no payment can be made to them
without further legislation by Congress. In
other words the sum Of So. 1855. 80 having been
collected and only a.. 604.62 thereof paid over
20 the United States. and the latter sum being
the amount refunded, Is not sufficient to pay
the amount collected This position, it seems
TO me, is notwell taken. This isinot the case of
banker refusing to pay check because the
drawer has not sufficient money to his credit to
pay it. The surplus Of the reimbursement tax
collected Of citizens Of this District from 1864
TO 1865 went into the general fund of the three |
corporations advancing the direct tax and the |
people got the benefit Of it. 1t is presumed TO |
have been spent for their use. that they have |
no legal or moral claim to the surplus, and ii is
not at all likely they will make any such claim
To the extent of the surplus they cannot be |
said to have paid the direct tax, because this |
money did not go to the United States for di- |
rect taxes The claims of individuals who paid |
this tax can be allowed and paid pro rata. |
Views in opposition to those herein expressed
arise. think, from placing this District in the
category Of states under the act OF August B. |
1851, and failing to note the distinction be-
tween the power Of Congress and the states to
authorize q tax to reimburse the payment Of
the direct tax. An error very likely TO be COM
mitted by one not especially skilled in matters
Of Law when engaged in the Interpretation of a
statute"
Mr.. Thomas suggests that the Commissioners
make a requisition on the Secretary of the
Treasury for the Districts share Of the refund.