Omaha daily bee., 1898-08-11
OF THE REVENUE STAMP
! Questions Involved in the New War
Tax Measure.
IONS TAUGHT BY FORMER STAMP ACTS
" mt n Courts Have Decided with
Inference to the Eject of Failure
to Observe the Pro-
visions of the Law.

hrt II day OF July last past Is a somewhat
aW tke ardly drawn piece Of legislation. Its
mo tst important provisions, says Law Notes,
ara taken with slight modification from the
sta imp act OF 1862, and the amendatory acts
OF nfs64 and 1866, but the way in which they
arTb inserted in the present act seems to
shaow an Ignorance of the history of the
foikrner legislation. Moreover, the act
abGbunds in involved and ungrammatical
sentences, but this is so common a defect of
ourt Jaws that 1t scarcely calls for passing
conhnent.
Settlon Z OF the present act, which enacts
'tjhft IL any person or persons shall make,
sie1n, or issue, or cause to be made, signed
ory issued, any instrument, document or
p5tper of any kind or description whatsoever,
without the same being duly stamped for
dethoting the tax hereby imposed thereon, or
without having thereupon an adhesive stamp
to denote said tax, such person or persons
shfll be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,
amp upon conviction thereof shall pay a fine
of not more than 800, at the discretion of
thk court, and such instrument, document or
paber, as aforesaid, shall not be competent
evidence in any court is based on section
Sol OF the act of 1862, as amended by the
acE of 1862, chapter 1853, section "a, the main
difference being that the earlier statute
prtpvided a penalty Of $50 for its infraction.
SeEtion 10 OF the present act, which is In
thtBe words: That II any person or persons
shfll make, sign or issue, or cause to be
mikie, signed or issued, or shall accept or
pa0. or cause to be accepted or paid, with
deVign to evade the payment Of any stamp
tai, any bill of exchange, draft or order. or
prpmissory note for the payment of money,
liable to any of the taxes imposed by this
ack without the same being duly stamped
49, a@a-,1 49,,
deboting the tax hereby charged thereon, he,
She or they shall be deemed guilty of a
mjsdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof
shall be punished by a Hne not exceeding
5000, at the discretion of the court is
identical in effect with section 100 of the
statute of 1862, except that the act of 1862
provided for a forfeiture of 5000 without
leaving anything to the courts discretion.
Difference in the Acts.
The two sections of the present act differ
IN the fact that intention to evade the pay
ment of the stamp tax is necessary to bring
the case within section 10. AS the act was
originally drawn in 1862 the pur-
pose of section 100 appears to
have been to impose a heavier pen
atty for emitting stamps on the particular
instruments therein mentioned, and the
clause making design an element of the Of
Tense was inserted as an amendment while
the ELL was undergoing discussion in the
senate and house. In the revised act of 1864
these two sections, being somewhat inhar-
monious, were consolidated and became sec.
ton 1913 of that act. The effect of this was
that intent was made essential in all cases,
the penalty was fixed at 5000 and the I'M
stamped instrument was d. Jared invalid. BY
an amendment of 1865 Thirteenth United
States Statutes at Large, page 4S1) The
penalty was reduced to $50. and this penalty
was retained in the amendment of 1856
Fourteenth United States Statutes at Large,
page 1922, which declared that instruments
mot being stamped according to law should
be deemed invalid and of no effect This
enactment, which in the act of 1864 was
substituted for sections % and 100 of the act
of 1862, appears side by side with them ir
the present statute as section 10 thereof
This section is practically Identical with sec,
ton 15S OF the act OF 1864 as amended il
1866, the amount of the penalty specified il
the last revision. namely $50, being retained
Thus one who issues an unstamped bill Of
note Is liable to a fine of 500 under section
of the present act without reference to hi
intent, by section 10 he Is liable to a fine o
5000 for the same offense, but only in cas-,
he is fixed with an intent to evade thu
statute, and by section IS he is liable unde
a similar restriction TO a fine of $50.
Conflicting Sections.
The result of the omission of the stam'
upon the instrument itself is also involved
in confusion. Under section Z an unstampet
instrument is inadmissible in evidence
Under section 10 an instrument from which
the stamp has been omitted with intent tt
evade the stamp tax is invalid and of NJ
effect. Under section II. which is based OF
section 1853 of the act of 1864. as amended
by act of 1866 IA u. S. Stat. at L., p. 143)
no unstamped instrument is admissible il
evidence until a legal stamp shall have beef
affixed thereto, and under the provisos at
tached to section 10 unstamped instrument
may be stamped after their Issue or transfe
upon the payment of $40, which may b
RENTED on certain conditions, where 1t ap
pears that the stamp was omitted in
nocently.
The statute which is now in force is thu
largely a compilation of the provisions {
preceding statutes and to the judicial In
depreciation of the former statutes tn
courts will undoubtedly turn in construin
the new enactment.
Has the
A question which meets us at the yer
outset of any consideration of this subjec
Ia the limits of the power OF congress |
prescribe and enforce a stamp tax In
matter has never been considered in IN
supreme court of the United States, bu
there Is a large body of authority In Tn
reports of the state courts upon this pom
The state courts all concede the power {
the federal legislature to levy a stamp "a
and to enforce its provisions by penal en-
actments, but here unanimity ceases !
some cases it is declared that congress ma
no power to go further than this ana de
clare domestic contracts void for want OF
stamp. or to prescribe to state courts a ruI
of evidence forbidding the admission OF III
stamped instruments. This view Is thl
stated by Judge Cooley in Simmons again,
Holloway, 2l Mich. 1862, 4 Am. Rep 40
I'VE have no doubt OF the rlg'
of congress to lay stamp duties, al
to impose penalties, which may be coliect'
by proper judicial proceedings, Tor al
violation of their regulations on that sup)e'
But to make void a contract made IN o.
OF the states between citizens thereof al
which is permitted by the local law Is n
a proper penalty, and is not admissiu
under our political system. There was
hint of such a power in our federal constit