Year: 1876

AoA AeooSniIiUu aU Cno celeBraIlOn, ana


suggest ed that they be engaged as an
escort for the people of Delaware, their


expenses to be paid 5y voluntary contri-
buttons
Mr. Grubb concluded. and the question


upon the adoption OF the resolutions
was put and carried without dissenting
voice, and the gentlemen who drafted
the resolutions were requested to pre-
sent the same to the City Council.
The meeting then adjourned


startling Purpose Of the Admin
ssfrdts0n 0o0se Income 1dces.



1t is important for the people to see
clearly the legal effect of the decision


made by the Supreme Court in the Dollar
Savings Bank case, and that by the Cir


cult Court in Rhode Island inthe Hazard


case. In the former the law said sthere


shall be levied and collected a tax of


five per centum on


all undistributed sums. or sums made


or added during the year to their sur
"plus or contingent fund" The bank
admitted it had earned and added to each
sum or fund 100000, but had not re-
turned it to any assessor, because the
Commissioner had decided it was not
to<AaOiC' iC tthA lldu tilClClOlC llOJ Dttu
assessed or levied by the executive officers
and the bank claimed that, as it had not


been duly assessed, the United States could


not maintain their suit, even though a
| new Commission had a new opinion. The
Court said this made no difference be-
| cause their was no need of an assessment


other than that which the law made and


the Court could enforce. Gan assess


ment," the Court adjudged, sis only de-


termining the value of the thing assess
ed and the amount of tax required of


the individual" And an action of debt
would lie, the Court added because the
law says stakes may be sued for and re-
covered" ETC., and because the law made
| this five per centum tax debt to the


United States, due on the day when the


statute said it was payable, and no stat
| utes of limitation run against the Govern
ment.


In the Hazard case the inquiry was not


over savings bank fund set aside as Sc


curity for depositors, but over an income


tax. Mr.. Hazard made no return to the


assessor, and was ''doomed" by the latter


to pay certain tax and a penalty which


were paid. After this, and without any
executive assessment. the United States


sued him for more tax in the same year,


and he pleaded that he had been assessed


and doomed, and had paid. The Court


overruled his plea, and thereby said, in


substance, that the trial, to ascertain
his real income, could go on, relying for
| its judgment on the savings bank deci-
sion.


The savings bank case was very unlike
Hazards, for the former related to an as


certained and defined fund, where there
had heen no assessment and booming, or


tax paid, while the latter concerned the


amount of annual income of one individ-


ual who hae been doomed according to


law, and had paid the tax.


All the laws imposing tax on the in
come of individuals declare that this tax
shall be "assessed" by an assistant asses
sor, which means that the Erecutiue De-
partment shall first decide what tax is
due; and these laws providing means for
assessing such income tax ended with the
year 1871, when that form of tax ceased
and determined.


But now the Administration in Wash
ington alarms the country by asserting
the power to sue any one and every one
for income taxes not assessed, and for
those which, on account of the repeal of
laws, can not be assessed blythe executive
The Administration asserts the right to
call every income-tax-payer from 1862
to 1872 into Court by suit, and try before
a jury the question of his income. 1t pre-
tends that the United States can bring
such suits where there was return BY
the citizen which some informer SAYS was
not large enough, as well as where there
was no return at all but the tax payer
was assessed and doomed, and likewise
where there was neither returning nor as
sessing nor booming.


Congress in the income statutes has
prescribed just how the Executive shall
proceed to get the tax, which is first, by
an assessment by an assessor; but the
Administration claims sort of royal pre-
rogatiye right to collect the tax by anotl-
er way, which is a suit and a public jlTy
inquisition and assessment.


If this is lawful and was intended by.
Congress, our taxpayers will be caught
in most defenseless position on account
of the possible loss or destruction of evil
dence by which, at the time, they could
have established theirimmunity; and will


be subjected to most odious inquisition.
The theory of the Administration is as
novel as it is offensive and dangerous to
the rights of the citizen and the security
of society.


And if this monstrous theory of law is
correct and decent for the nation, why is
it not for each State,-and may it not be
applied to taxpayers in New York under
our State laws and by State Court? Here
property must be ESTIMATED and assessed
at its true value by assessors for State and
city taxation: but if the executive author
tiles OF New York think the valuations
thus made in this city too low, why, OH
the Washington doctrine, can they by
suit against the taxpayer, tear open all
that has been done, and raise his taxes to
any point at which julries may see fit to fix
the value of taxable property?


The Uure bIonded Nepro Nnf Ant N