Court Opinion

ID: 9808929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:54:33.051974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:20:12.251872
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J., dissenting.
I can not concur in the opinion of the Court as it seems to be required neither by the wording of the statute nor the policy of the law. I deeply regret the apparent tendency to depart from the strict construction cf penal statutes, of immemorial obligation, and to give to them a liberal or so-called beneficial interpretation. The effect of such “beneficial interpretation” is to create criminals by judicial construction. Such a course can never meet my approval.
Let us lay aside for the moment the technicalities of law and take a common sense view of the facts of the case before us. The defendant is indicted for failing to pay the sum of one dollar which he had not the slightest idea he was owing. He is probably but one among a thousand country merchants who are in the same situation. They are perfectly willing to pay their taxes, and probably have done so> as there is no allegation' that he owes 'any tax whatsoever except the- one *696dollar license fee. And yet these men, willing to perforin every duty and to pay every debt, are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment in the common jaihat the discretion of the Court below. They are not given an opportunity to pay tbe tax. But it seems this is not enough. After serving one term in jail, they are not yet safe. The vengeance of the law is not yet satisfied, for their failure to pay that dollar. • The Sheriff, who in the meantime has collected by execution the penalty of fifty dollars, imposed by Section 103, may, for the • first time, demand that dollar, and a failure to pay on demand may be. followed by another long term of imprisonment.
Can we suppose that the law contemplated any such consequences ? Surely not. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that where one matter is specifically provided for in one part of a statute, it is pro tanto taken out of the general operation of the statute. It seems clear from the face of the statute that Section 101 ivas intended to cover a failure to pay such unusual and additional taxes as are not supposed to be within the knowledge of the average citizen. I know, of course, that everyone is presumed to know the law, but we all know that this is a mere naked presumption of the most violent nature, usually without any foundation in reality. Taking this fact into consideration, Section 101, provides that such a taxpayer shall not be liable to prosecution until after demand by the Sheriff, and a subsequent failure or refusal to pay. This section further provides that, even after the delinquent is arrested and carried before a committing Magistrate, he may avoid all further penalty by paying the original license fee with all costs and expenses due to the Sheriff.
If Section 103 is held to apply to the case at bar, the wise and beneficent provisions of Section 101 are practically eliminated from the statute, and the jail doors are open to per*697haps a thousand honest men who are entirely innocent of the slightest wrongful intent.
As I have said before, I am in favor of punishing criminals, but not of making criminals.
We should not forget that it has been found as a fact that “the defendant had no knowledge of the law requiring him to pay the special tax.” I can not concur in the opinion of the Court, as I think that the wise judgment of the able Judge below should be affirmed.