Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-04-24
TAX TITLES INVOLVED
An Important Case Argued Before Judge
Cox.
Claimed That Tax Sales Are Invalid
The Contentious of Counsel
Decision Reserved.


have the District Commissioners restrained
from selling his property for unpaid taxes.
The property in question consists of lots
1 to 13, inclusive, square east of square
10, and lots 1 to 6, inclusive, square east
of square I'll. Under the act of Congress
of March g. 1877, taxes were levied against
the several lots running from ss.O0 to
s15.33. In addition to the tax, the Com
m!ssioners added a penalty of per cent
for non-payment.
That is, on December 1, 1S03, and on the
first day of the following January, Febru-
ary, March, April and May, they added 2
per cent of one-half of the taxes; and June
1, 1884. and on the first day of each month
thereafter, they added per cent Of the
whole tax, demanding payment of said
penalties and $l.2O on each lot as cost OF
advertising Mr.. Burgdorf was represented
by Mcssrs. A A. and T. w. Birney, Messrs.
S. It. Thomas and A. b. Duvall appealing
on behalf OF the District.
The Contention.
In opening the case, Mr.. Thomas ex-
planned to the court that the complainant
contended that the act of 1877 was ONLY tenn
porary In It's nature, and applied only to
taxes for the year ending June 30. 1878.
AS the bill Of complaint. said Mr.. Thomas,
involved only the construction or the
statutes, the District had entered de-
murrer. The act of 1877, stated Mr.. Thom-
as. Is the permanent tax law OF the LIS,
trict. and April 3, 1878. Congress amended
section 3 of that act by striking out the
year. making the section general and leaV-
ing untouched section 4. which authorizes
the penalties referred to.
doubt of the right to impose penalties for
the refusal to perform duties under tax
laws and there is no legal presumption
either that the citizens will. II possible
t1air 1,,tia nr
that the government win exact unjustly
or beyond it's needs. 1t was also Claimed
by Mr.. Burgdorf, explained Mr.. Thomas
that the cost of advertising ana prin.imt
the pamphlet containing the delinquent
tax list shall be paid by charge or 70
cents for each lot or piece Of property ad-
vertised, and that Mr.. Burgdorf has ten
Gered this to the District with the amount
of the principal of his taxes The District
refused to accept the same, demanding
payment at the rate of $l.D for each par
eel. This charge of s1.29, said Mr.. Thomas
is based upon a clause in the District ap-
preparation bill approved August Z. 1884,
such a provision having been inserted IN
the appropriation bills since that Of July
IA, 1892.
Will Invalidnte Tux Titles.
Should Mr. Burgdorf's contention. stated
Mr. Thomas, that penalties for non-pay-
ment of general taxes is limited to the
years 1877 and 1878 be well founded, the
result would invalidate all tax titles since
the latter year. Mr.. Burgdorf, contended
Mr.. Thomas, could have avoided the penal
ties by promptly paying the taxes. and, not
having done so, he is not In position to
make complaint The case. said Mr..
Thomas. in conclusion, is of the very first
Importance to property, owners as affecting
title, and to the District as affecting its
revenue. For, declared Mr.. Thomas, If the
contention of Mr.. Burgdorf Is sustained,
his case will be made the foundation Of
claims to refund, which, If allowed, will
require, it is estimated, more than S1,0OO.-
GO to satisfy.
Mr.. Birney's Reply.
Replying to Mr.. Thomas, the Messrs.
Birney contended that the act Of 1877 ap-
piled only to taxes during the following
year, saying that the eighteenth section of
the act did not have the effect of provid
ing penalties for failure to pay taxes in
any subsequent year, since the fourth sec
tion Of the act provided only for failure
to pay taxes in the year 1878. Therefore,
they said not since that time has there
been any provision of law for the imposi-
ton of penalties for failure to pay the
taxes when they become due. The act of
1878. argued the counsel for Mr.. Burg
dorf, merely changed the time at which
the installments of the taxes should be
payable, but did not provide for the i'm
position of penalties for failure to pay
those installments when due. So, In the
absence of expressed authority, the court
cannot infer penalties, but must find eX-
press warrant for the same in the terms
of the statute, and cannot, by implication
alone, extend such penalties to subsequent
years.
Referring to the cost of advertising, Mr..
Burgdorfs counsel contended that the law
does not provide that such cost shall be
charged against the property. Nor did
Congress, in apropriating $4,000 for ad-
vertising, provide that it should be charged
to delinquent taxpayers, and. therefore,
such amount did not constitute lien. by
which the property of those in arrears
could be held. The charge of $1.20 against
each delinquent parcel argued counsel, is
greatly in excess of the true cost of adj
vertising, and certainly to the extent in ex-
cess the charge is clearly Illegal The cost
Of such advertising, claimed Mr.. Burgdorf.
was about 5000, while charge of $1.2O
against each parcel in arrears amounted to
about So, 600, resulting in clear profit to
the District of $4,000. That great excess
it was sought to compel those in arrears to
bear, an act which, counsel for Mr.. Burg
dorf claimed, invalidated the proceeding.
Decision Reserved.
Mr.. A. B. Duvall closed the argument,
celebrating the points urged by. Mr..
Thomas, and insisting that Mr.. Burgdorf
was not entitled to the relief prayed.
Judge Cox took the papers In the case, but
did not state when he would announce his
decision,