Springer v. States. [Sap.-Ct.United586

factof every singleof upon proof"dependentrecoveryrightrecitéd inhas been- thisor whichin the pleadings,averred

■ case, of thethe in lighthave consideredWe theopinion.demurrer,averred, apd, conceded to exist.•facts, theas by

nothe court will have diffi-trial, after issuethe joined,Uponsaid, in whetherwhat wé havein view of determiningculty,

breach ofcase, to the aasthe jury,actually presented shovesrailroadthe ofor thepartobligation upon company,duty legal

it be liable infor which damages.mayreversed," and the cause remandedwill beThe judgment

demurrer,the and for furtherwith- directions to overrule pro-isitin this andopinion;ceedings conformity with

So ordered.

Springer v. United States.

by payandof A. were distrained sold reason of his refusal to1. landsCertain30,against ,(13him. under the act of 1864the income tax assessed June

by 3, (id.,1865 469), having218), the act of March he noas amendedStat."propergoods the officers out which tax andor chattels known to of the

. purchaserpenalty The States thecould have been made. United’ becametherefor,lands, brought ejectment againstandreceived a deedof' the him.

question deed,-Held, cannot raise .the here that the inasmuch as it'that he30, should,March 30 instead of that of Junerefers to the act-of on the

admissi-,trial, jury, objectionthe as that tohave been excluded from itsoriginalbility jurisdiction.inwas hot made the court ofin evidence

faith, him,good improperit was not for in2. Where collector acted in thethe■ discretion, entirety lands, consistingas an theof his to sell of twoexercise' occupied single homestead,and atown lots which were enclosed as a dwell-

ing-house being upon andone of them a tarn on the other. The Statethey separately applicationunderstatute which assessed has no towere

proceedings,his.“Congress, power taxes, duties,lay imposts,3. in the exercise of its to and collect

■ excises,” may, payment,and to the distraint andenforce their authorizepersonal property. propertyof either realsale or The owner of the so

thereby deprived processand sold is not of due•distrained it without of, law.

taxes, Constitution,meaning only capitation4. Direct within the of the are taxesexpressedas in that andinstrument, tax'es real estate.onduty assessed,providedwhich5. The the internal revenue acts col-should be

• lected, paid gains,upon profits, duty,and and was an excise orincomestax, meaningand not a direct within the of the Constitution.

'’•SpringerOct. v. United States. 5871880.]

Error to tKe Circuit ofCourt the States forUnited the'Southern District-of Illinois.

June,In 1866, the assessor of internal revenue -forthedeputydistrict inproper Illinois delivered to M.William aSpringer

notice in with forms,certainwriting, accompanying requiringhim- within ten to réturn,make out anddays toaccording

forms,those a list of income,his and for thegains, profits year1865. In therewith,compliance made out the neces-'Springer

statement, 21, 1866,datedsary June and delivered it to thewith a writtenueputy, together theprotest against authority

the latter to statement,of demand the on the that thegroundacts under whichCongressnf that officer acted were uncon-stitutional and void. statement,The that the netshowingincome received for 1865,the andby Springer year subject

taxation,to' $50,798,amounted to which the sum ofupon$4,799.80 tax,was assessed as was transmitted to David T.Littler,, collector, who,the 17, 1866,Nov. re-payment beingfused, served noticea upon andSpringer demanding payment,

that,him unless it shouldwarning be made within ten days,the law authorized the collection tax,of the with atogether

of ten cent additional distraint andpenalty per sale.byrefused, andPayment noagain Springer having goodsbeing

or chattel's which were known to. the collector hisor deputy,collector, 24, 1867,the Jan. caused a $5,279.78,warrant for

the amount of the tax and to be issued and leviedpenalty,certain real estate in theupon ofcity Springfield, Sangamon

Illinois, of two of lots inCounty, the sameconsisting piecesfence,enclosure division andwithout any belonging Springer,to.

■one of which was located hisupon pieces anddwelling-house'other his barn. Theupon-the advertised, and,was onproperty

15,1867, sold,March the United States becoming'the purchasertax,for the amount of the and costs. On thatpenalty, day

a,ndLittler, collector,as made executed to the United Stateswhich,a deed of the 28, 1868,Nov. was recordedproperty, in

recorder’s office of that Merriam,the. hiscounty. .Jonathancollector, executed,successor as made and 17, 1874, an-April

other thedeed to United States for the same Thisproperty.de,ed 23,was recorded It recitesduly April 1874. the assess-

tax,ment the therefor,of the demand the seizure and sale of

Springer v. States. Ct.[Sup.588 United

of of of tliéan act Congress.the property “by-virtue United.‘America,of internalStates An to reve-'entitled Act provide

thjnue to the to interest onandgovernment* pub7s.upport paydebt,’ 1864,1,1862,lie and the act of March 30approved July

as ámended.”2, 1874,Dec. this action uithe'United brought eject-States

ment against Springer.1 facts,'At the'trial the the foregoingplaintiff, having proved

• 17, 1874;in evidence the deed but th’e de-offered of Aprilthereto,, void,deed isfendant on the that theobjected ground

tax, and,beúause the nottax demanded of him a directwasConstitution, waslevied in the themannerbeing prescribed by

him;not. a valid demand that theor summary levylegal uponand sale of to him tohis withoutupon property -opportunity

without,be heard hisin him of duecourt deprived propertylaw; au-of that the acts of toprocess Congress purporting

tax, ofthorize the of the the sale hisand levyassessmentdeed, force orand the execution of the weie withoutproperty

ofand was divisionthat as' susceptiblevalidity; .propertythelots;into tracts or the laws of Illinois wereseparate disregarded

,also the same reasonsnot it He forséllingby accordingly.of theto the introduction in evidence papers pertain-objected

sale;assessment, but the court overruledthe anding'to levy,and the deed to be read inand thempermittedthe objection,

The defendant thereupon .excépted.evidence.thethe he lotsIt was defendant purchasedproved that.by

described,different that are areparties, they separatelyfrom' division,of and would have to bettersold advantagesusceptible

that assessedhad been sold were sepa-theyseparately;they1866,taxation, were, infor andthe of Staterately purpose

$10,000 $12,000.between andworthyofcourt at the the chargedrequest plaintiff,thereupon,The

instrument,1. is a validthe Injury: questionthe deedThatdefendanttransferred the the title of theUnitedto Statesancl

or men-in.ánd to the 2. That the laws acts oflots. Congresstime, andin at- thesaid deed were valid enactmentstioned.

in To whichtheauthorized proceedings premises.the takencourtthe todefendantthe andexcepted,inistiactions' asked

—thecharge jury,

SpringerOct. States.v.'United 5891880.]

income,1. the tax the andThat of theon gains, profitshim,defendant, assessed ais the inevidenceupon appears by

case,this was a direct the the-tax.within Consti-meaning'oftution, States, that,of the United and in order tó constitute

defendant,tax a valid claim the it havesuch should-uponthe thebeen several States same asamongapportioned repre-are.- if fromsentatives in the believeCongress juryAnd.

the evidence that such tax not so theapportioned amongwasStates, then such tax ofseveral levied in thewas violation

Constitution, and the sale of defendant’s toproperty, satisfyvoid, in findthe same is and that case will for the de-they

fendant.2. That the sale to the taxof defendant’s real estate satisfy

him manner,assessed in a without firstupon havingsummaryrecord,aobtained a in court toofjudgment proceedingwas.a

of histhe defendant without due ofdeprive property processlaw; theand if believe from the tfiat defendant’sevidencejury

him,real estate sold to the tax assessedwas with-uponsatisfy-record,first obtained a courtout in a of orhaving judgment

without said defendant an to "be heard ingiving opportunitycourt, then such void,sale was and will find for -thetheydefendant.

3. That if the believe infrom tne evidence this casejurythat a of ten cent the amount of said'tax waspenalty per Upon

revenue,assessed defendant the collector ofupon internalby$479.98,which amounted to without obtainedpenalty having

record,in law,a ofa court ofdue andjudgment by processthat the defendant’s real estate soldwas to saidsatisfy penalty,'

tax, void,saidwith thentogether such sale was and willtheyforfind the defendant-.

4. That a title to land under a orparty claiming summarymust show that all theextraordinary proceeding indispensable

to a valid sale the andwhich law the Constitu-preliminarieswith;have been and iftion-prescribe believecomplied they

from the that the has failed to show thatplaintiffevidencethe of theall law have been with inrequirements complied

tax,and notice,ofthe assessment the the service of thelevywarrant,theissue of and thereof,the the execution in the

and sale ofadvertisement the andin the makingproperty,

'Springier Ct,v. States.United [Sup.590

deed,execution of the and in all the other ofrequirementslaw, then find forthe will the defendant.they

the sale of5. real to a tax not.That estcie personalsatisfyestate,or liena said without hav-real firstupon uponlevied

court,in aa of record and an execu-ing judgmentobtainedthereof,tion in a tois apursuance proceeding deprive person

law;of his without due of ifand be-property process théy'from the in thislieve case that the taxevidence levied upon

was not assessed saiddefendant the first instance uponin.thereon,estate and made a lien and that said real estatereal

was sold to said of a courttax without asatisfy judgmentrecord, void,of then such sale is and find for theWillthey

defendant.But the court refused to so the refusalto whichjury,. change

the defendant excepted.States,,found for theThe United and a motion for ajury

refused,been to whichnew trial refusal the defendanthavingwas rendered The defendantexcepted, judgment Accordingly.

—writ, and error,then sued out this here forassigns'1. The admission in evidence-of1 d,eedthe and other papers

in the court below.2. The refusal of court tothe the as requested.charge jury’him.by

of the3. The thegiving charge requested by plaintiff.'refusal a'-new trial.4. "The to grant

M. for the in error.'Mr. William plaintiffSpringertheassessed in errorThe tax beenagainst plaintiff having

income, andhis is a direct tax.levied upon- gains, profits,Nations, 212, 213, 216, 220-228,of 244-3 WéalthSmith’s

248, 271-274, 276-278; 418-434;.2 Mill’s Pol. Econ. Say’s465-468, ; Econ.-443;480 Eléments Pol.Pol. Econ. Perry’s

Diet,371;Inf. for1 the Brande’s ofPeople,Chambers’sArt,Science, Literature, 1211;and Pol. -Econ.Wayland’s

392;391, title “Taxa-Knight’s Cyclopaedia 1842),(London,” ”“; Britannica, ;title Taxationtion Encyclopaedia Encyclo-

“Taxes;.” Elliott’s.Debates,.433;Americana, title 4 SirpaediaTaxation, 50, 53;Peto onMorton Goodrich’s Science of Gov-

251;ernment, 214, 221;Ricardo’s of Pol. Econ.Principles1 51816).Pampletier,-557

SpringerOct. v. United States. 5911880.]

based,The tax incomes noton been evenhaving professedly,nor the severalupon population apportioned, relatively among

States, in of.was violation the Constitution of the United9;S., 1, 2, Kent, 277;States. 8,Const. U. sects. 1art. Com.

113, Blake,2 143;Const. v. Wheat.5Story, Loughborough.317­

The acts of virtue of thewhich tax complainedbyCongressof was levied conferred no either its assessmentforauthority,and the sale of ahis the oflevy, property,-or execution .deedtherefor.

1,' 1862,The deed recites thatthe act and ofapproved July30, 1864,March as No ofamended. act bears theCongress

latter date. the was not indeed admissibleConsequentlyif itBut be contended thatthe United Statesby.evidence.30,the act of June 1864 was the one referred(13 Stat. 218),

to, it is act,then submitted that that as thatamended bypot1865,3,:of March did takenauthorize the byproceedings

a,limitedthe collector. The to tax one,ispower levy.the(heand transcended,if limits law areprescribed by the-.levy

is Merrills,void. District v.West Canton 12 Conn.School of437.

is, trial,In case where an individual tax shownevery uponauthorized,to'be the a sale of the landgreater'than "amount

of such tax willfor the be deemed void.payment Kemper v.324;Ohio,McClelland, Shaw,19 v. 1 GreeneElwell (Iowa),

335; Blackwell, Titles, 160,Tax 161.and ofsale the ofThe theupon inlevy property plaintiff

-error in of thewas violation the.of Constitution ofprovision“the thatUnited States no shall bedeclaring person deprived

life,of his without due law.”liberty, or''.property ofprocess661; 623-625;3 Const. 1 id. Lessee v. Ho­Story, Murray's

Co., 272;boken Land and 18 How.Improvement Wynehamer378;13v. The N. Y. Berberrich,v. 11 How.People, People

289.Y.) Pr.(N.“ law,”Due of in true andprocess its largest significa­

means.law,intion, its course ofregular administration thebycourts of and not the execution ajustice', of vested inpower

officers. Henderson,ministerial Hake v. 15;4 Dev. L.(N. C.)Porter, 146;v. 4 BankTaylor, (N. v.Y.), ColumbiaHill of

Springer Ct.States. [Sup.592 v. United'

481;White, 5235; Y.)Barb. (N.4 Wheat. v.WhiteOkely,­Bennett,22; v.2 Hoocockv. Wright,Reed (Iowa),Greene

740; M.2 3 Hen. &v. (Va.)Cow. Y.) Kenny Beverly,(N.336; id.87; 16Hummel,v. 6 Pa. St. Ervine’s Appeal,Brown­

;; McLean,4 5 Webster’s256­ v. Burlingame,Arrowsmith 498­Taxation;Works, 488;487, 316-­319.Cooley,

court, athe thatchthe below to juryThe to rgerequestorunder a summ extraordinarytitle to land ryclaimingparty

indispensable prelimina­must show that all theproceedingwith, have beenshouldto a beenries valid sale have. complied

Powell,322; v.Stiles, Thatcherv. 14 Pet.Gamesgranted.354;828, 353,Taxation, 334,308,119;6 Wheat. Cooley,

214-216;Blackwell, Titles,26; TaxRex 1 Cowp.Cooke,v.286; Rourke,Bennett, Denike v.5 Y.),v. Hill (N.Leland ­

; 1 Bibb 214­3 v. .Owings,Biss. 39­ Hardin (Ky.),

Smith, contra.Mr. Assistant GeneralAttorney-'

facts,Swayne, the theafter statingMr. Justice deliveredthe court.ofopinion

in is whetherthis casecentral and questionThe controllingand ofon the profitstax which was levied income,'gains,the

record,error, in the' andset forth by pre-the in ásplaintiffofand acts thereinvirtue the of partstended of acts Congress

ta,x.. .with tomentioned, is is fundamental respecta direct Itthethe result of It willof andthe-the case.-rights parties

made' theof the other points bybe considered. Manyl^stthe same in formsthingin-errorplaintiff reproduce different

will, to withoutall be respondedof formallylanguage. Theywithout-This will conduceof them.anyrestating to.brevity

clearness, the omis-and will involve necessarynotsacrificing■beof to said.sibn properanything

“us brief thatin advises elaborateThe errorplaintiff hisbytheon the of the case below weretrial proceedings merely'

submitted,formal,” briefs' wereand that “no orargumentshad as were' to_ were necessary pre-and- suchonly proceedings

the ease Court.”for.thepare Supremerecord,thedefects in afor the numerous asThis accounts

that theIt doubtless- intended questionwhole. was only pre-beof errorsented in the first of the should consid-assignments

.Springer' 598v. States.Oct. United1880.]

• sufficient.is full andhere. In that the recordered respectourerrors, however, have been uponpressedOther alleged

attention, thqm.must ofand we disposeofone of the actsthe deed ofis a misrecital inThere clearly

March,the 30threfers,.it the act ofto which ByCongress ofJune, in thethe act of the1864, was meantclearly 30th of

revenue ofto internalis no actThere relatingsame year.the former date.

fact,of thishimselfin error cannot avail'But the plaintiffreasons.for several

of the courtnot to the attentionwasThe point broughtIt comescannot, therefore, insisted here.bebelow, and upon

act ofwasnon nocet. Itthe rule demonstratiowithin .thefalsa3, 1865, that30, 1864, the act of Marchas amended byJune

act tookThe latterwhen the tax assessed.in force wasivaá“ the herein1, 1865, that pro:and dutyeffect declaredApril

collected, and the.assessed,- gains,uponvided for shall be paid■ offqr the dayincome the ending thirty-firstand yearprofits,

next, andtime forthe collecting,preceding levying,Decembersaid duty.’.’paying

1866,in offor 1865tax assessed the springThe was year the.1865, to tbe of thatthe act of according requirementsunder

examination,find, theact; that assessment wasand we upon469, criticism of 'thecorrect. 13 Theall Stat. 479.in things

is, therefore,in this without foundarin regard.errorplaintifftion.

of the collector were not in conflict with theThe proceedings“ noto the which declares thatConstitution personamendment

life,of or duebe property'withoutdeprived liberty, processshall• to distrain for theThe personal property pay-law.” powerof

commonis almost as old as the law.taxesment of Cooley,to theTaxation, The Constitution302. gives Congress power

“ taxes, duties, and Ex-collect excises.”imposts,andto laylimit to the exercise of the isno powerto pre-as exports,cept

v. Wheat. Mr. Chief316),Maryland (4scribed. In McCulloch“said, t-otax involves theThe toJustice Marshall power power

it tois not competent for'Congress .todestroy.” Why apply•to sellas whenwell as distrain andpowerpersonalty-therealty

tax? is..to enforce the of a thenecessary payment only.Itxii. 38vol.

Springes594 v. United States. Ok[Sup.

furtherv exercise of the same for the samelegitimate powerIn Lessee v. Hoboken andpurpose. LandMurray's Improve­

ment Co. How. this court-held that an act .of274),(18 Congressissue, oath,a warrant to without aauthorizing publicagainst

debtor, valid;for the hisseizure of the.wasproperty, thatwarrant was in it,of the recitedconclusive factsevidenceand that the “due of law” inwas thatprocessproceeding

Smalls, 517;See also Decased Treville v. 98 U. S. v.Sherry496; States, 268;99 id. Miller v. United 11 Wall.McKinley,

v. Defrees, 331.Tyler id.. taxes is to-The.' of theprompt payment importantalways'

It be ofwelfare. vital'-to aexistencepublic may govern-the.is toment. The that entitled theevery tax-payer delaysidea

laws,the"If here in involvedof unreason.litigation i.s questionharshness,' it foror was orCongress,any wrong unnecessary

seeto that the evil was cor-the who make congresses,peoplethe,not lie withThe does branch- ofrected. judicialremedy

the government.statute had no to the whetherThe Illinois application pointof

the or inshould sold collector en masse twothe be bypremises- thethat house on one. lotor more The fact was andparcels.other, that the whole surrounded aon thethe barn bywas

enclosure,-and that the entire was occupiedcommon .propertyit nothomestead, for the collectorrendered improperas a single

No of badthe sale as it was made. faithsuspicionmaketodiscretion, and itahim.. He was clothed--with istoattaches

it both andhe exercisedthat well..fairly-beto presumed44.17 Wall.v. Bynum,Olcott

not taxdoes If the wasappear:the notcontraryCertainlycourt,thetax, brief asthe instructions given bydirect theya

case, submittedand it tothe whole thewere, properlycovered'jury. . __

entitled to more.in Theerror nothingwasThe- plaintifffor was liable to severalhe asked fatalwhichinstructionfourth

and -itindefinite. It left forwas toóIt generalobjections.the “indispensable preliminaries”what wereto decidethe jury

in the numerousand Constitution partic-the-lawbyrequiredto matters to which the attention-It referredula^s, specified.

called,to been and innot havebelow does appearthe courtof

v,.Springer 595United States.Oct-.’1880.]

.which, done,if this had been the wouldto requisite proofregardoffalls withindoubtless have been principleIt. theSupplied.

court, instructionswhereoften this thatthe rule so byappliedthe wholea'mass, bein if one them mayaré asked of; wrong

the tes-tonotbe The record does give allpurportrejected.the modetoare doubtless dueand its largelydefectstimony,

statedtried,the case the alreadyin which was and single objectinstruction wasthe then had in view. The prop-which parties

refused.erlythea within dis-To or refuse a new was mattertrialgrant

beit refused cannotcretion of the court. That was assignedfor error here.

haveSeveral other minor earnestly argued bypoints .beentheerror, as are withinlearned in but alltheyplaintiff.the

below, we needof taken in courtnot been thecategory havingnot to them.more advertparticularly

inThis us the of the mainto examination questionbrings•the case.

on areThe clauses of the Constitution the subjectbearing—as follows:

-f£ beand direct taxes shall apportioned amongRepresentativesUnion;within ac-be includedthe several States which thismay

numbers, shall be determinedto their whichrespective bycordinga term' ofthe number those bound toto whole foradding .service

taxed,. all otherIndians not three-fifths ofandyears, excludingdirect', "belaidor other tax shall unless. . . Nopersons. capitation

taken.”census hereinbeforedirected to beto the.in proportion

was,If- it notin a direct tax?the tax here questionWasto ofbeen the Constitu-laid theaccording requirementshaving

tion, it,the and themust that lawsit be admitted' imposingfortaken the assessor and collectorunder byproceedings .them

collection, all void.and wereits impositionof the of ofof the Articles ConfederationprovisionsMany

in the law.embodied They pro-1777 were existing organicthe mode it withpfvided for a common andtreasury supplying

thelatter wasfunds. The by requisitions upon several States.in the of theThe difficulties complianceprocuring"delaysand.

of thé causes that led to theStates, known, was one adop-it is

Springer v.596 States. Cfc.United [Sup.

tion of the clause ofConstitution. This the articlespresentthrows, no on the we are called toquestion consider.light upon

doesNor the of the of the constitutionaljournal proceedingsofconvention 1787 of much value'contain anything relating

to.the subject.It that on the of in11th that thereappears" July, year,

was a debate of some warmth the slav-ofinvolving topic• Morris, York,On the Gouverneur of Newery. following,day

submitted a .“ taxation shallthat be inproposition propor-tó It recordedtion is further in thisrepresentation.” day’s

that Mr. Morris so varied his motionproceedings, having by“direct,” con.,it nem.the word as follows:inserting passed

“ to beProvided that direct taxes tooughtalways proportioned2 Madison 1079-representation.” Papers, by Gilpin, pp.

1081.“month,of the same Mr.On the 24th Morris said that he

would strike out thethe committee whole clause.....hopedait as to assist us overhad meant a hav-He bridgeonly gulf;

the be removed.the Hepassed- gulf, bridge thoughting maydown with strictness tothe laid so much liable strongprinciple

The the shareId. was ofgulf representa-,1197..objections.”accountthe on their slavetion claimed Southern States ofby

the remained-. The builder could notBut bridgepopulation.it, as he desired to so. All seemmuch dpremove parties

With one or two im-have avoided theto subject.thereafternoted, it does notnot to bematerial necessaryexceptions,

into It wasadverted any way.that it was again'appearthe the Constitution asinto draft of thatsilently incorporated

adopted.instrument was finallymade t'oan was onethat attempt by anydoes notIt appear

of the employed.the meaning languageexactdefineFederalist,of the Alexandernumberthe twenty-firstIn

said: “Those of theHamilton, of taxes-generally,speakingandlandrelate tokind, buildings, mayprincipallydirect which

land,value of thetheEitherrule ofof a apportionment.admita standard.” Theasservetheof people, maythe .numberor

-author,work, shme is de-theof thatnumber bythirty-sixth' "said,thereisIt' Theyinternal taxes.ofto the subjectvoted

and theof the directthoseinto those..ofsubdividedbenay

SpringerOct. States. 597v. United1880.]

indirect kind.”. In land-taxes andconnection poll-taxesthisare discussed. areThe former are commended and the lattercondemned. In'is said of other direct tax.Nothing anyneither case is there a or ofdefinition theattemptedgiven

“ direct tax.”phrase-The the inelaborate of error havevery plaintiffresearchesi

offurnished us with from the debates the State con-nothingventions, the whichwhom Constitution was adopted, givesbyus assume that no suchaid. Hence we mate-7any may safely

isdirection,rial in it' thatexists knownthough Virginiathatto an to theamendment relating subject,proposed Congress

South'Carolina,. York',Massachusetts, and Norththat Newandofexpressed strong disapprobation powerCarolina the given

Bláckstone, 1,to such burdens. 1 Tucker’s' pt.impose app.,235.

in the conventionthe two most authoritative personsPerhapsthe were and Madison. TheHamiltonConstitutiontouching

11,latter, 1794,of of thea letter tax whichin May speakingin (3v. United States Dall.upon 171),Hyltonwas adjudicated

“ ofsucceeded in the Consti­said, tax carriages spiteThe on.thethe advocates ofofa twenty, principlemajoritytution by

adversaries, of 2the Mad. Writ­luxhry.”reinforced bybeing,7thletter,14. another ofIn thep.Congress),byings (pub.

1796, to ofthe case v. Unitedreferring HyltonFebruary,of“he ThereStates, remarked: never was a ques­then pending,

satisfied, and Imin'd was better haveyeton which my verytionit will be .viewed in the' samethat light bylittle expectation

is Id. the despond­it me.”that 77. Whencecourt bythe.isthus .unexplained.expressedency

briefs,him ofbehind a series andleft legal amongHamilton“ vol; 848,tax.” vii. ofSee hisentitled Carriage p.onethem

with a towas view theThis evidentlypaper preparedworks.case, he as of theone counsel forin which appearedHylton

“it What is theIn he distinctionsays:the United States.It ataxes? is matter ofand indirect regretdirectbetweensoand in aso uncertain areimportantvague pointthat termsshall seek in vain forin the Constitution. Weto be any,found

to the terms.settled Thererespectiveantecedent legal meaningas much a loss to findshall be at any dispositionis none. We

•Springer'698 v. United States. Ct.[Súp'.

of either which'can thedetermine Theresatisfactorily point.”in States,some of themany and few inbeing carriages very

others, he theout ifpoints suchpreposterous consequences.cpllecteda tax be laid and on the ofprinciple apportion-

ment instead of the rule of He insists that if theuniformity.tax,tax there in was a direct beso would a taxquestion

on to theirships, He that -theaccording -tonnage. suggestsline between direct and indirect beboundary settledtaxes

arbitration,”“a ofspecies and that directby be heldtaxes“to taxes,be or andonly oncapitation taxes landspoll

and assessments,and whetherbuildings, oh wholegeneral' theof individuals or on their whole real ofproperty personal

must,estate. All else .of be asconsidered indirectnecessity,taxes.”

The tax here in within neitherquestion falls of these cate-”“■It is not a- ontax thegories. whole . . . estatepersonal

individual,of income,the on his andbut-only gains, profitsa which have butyear, been a small ofduring may his.part

estate, and in mostpersonal cases have so.would been Thislends noclassification tosupport the of theargument plaintiff

in error.Constitution intoThe went on the ofoperation March,4th

1789.It is to look into the ofimportant touch-legislation Congress

thatthe since time. Thesubject willing following summaryfor our We shall refer tosuffice the several acts ofpurpose.

to be examined to their in dates.Congress, according sequenceof them the amountIn all aggregate required,to be collected

thewas severalamong States.apportioned14, 1798, 75,act of c.The 1 Stat. 53. This actJuly im-

a tax real estate and a 'taxupon slaves.posed capitation upon2, 1813, 37,of id.The act 3 53.c. this actAug. theBy

slaves,real estate andtax was toimposed upon theiraccordingin money.valuesrespective

19, 1815, 21,act of Jan.The c. id. 164. This act imposedofthe tax the same and inupon likedescriptions property,

as the act.manner preceding27, 1815, 216,60,. act of Feb. c.The id. to the Dis-applied

Columbia the act 19,trict of of the ofprovisions Jan. 1815.

' Springer.v'. .United States. -599.'Oct. 1880.]'the,'255,5,' 1816, 24, id.c.act of March tworepealed,Tbe

acts, enforce'and their theto.provisionsre-enactedprecedingtbe amount of taxof smaller prescribed.’•collection thereby

'5, 1861, 45,12 294, theact of c. id. taxThe requiredAug-.estate.be levied onto realwholly

422,98,June-7, 1862, c. id. and the of Feb.The act of act-640, collection,21,6, 1863, c. id. rélate to the' in-both onlyi

districts,' of the direct tax the actinsurrectionary imposed by5, 1861, not,and need more'therefore,'be particularlyof Aug.

noticed.whenever,will, the im-thus be that hasIt government.seen

tax,tax which it a it hasa as direct neverrecognizedposed•been to but estate and’ Thereal' slaves.'objectsapplied any

be accounted forapplication may upon two.grounds:.latter-1. Iii some of the States slaves weie as realregarded, estate

239;Hurd, Fenno,Veazie Bank v. 8 Wall.(1 Slavery, 533);burden,and,'2, .such an of the taxextension lessened the upon

existed,the real estate where while result to thetheslaverysame,national was the slaves were omit-the whether’treasury

therefore,wishes of were,or' included. The the Southtedare hotallowed to We aware that the .theprevail. question of.

such a tax wasof ever forpresentedvalidity adjudication.'it"cannot hereafterhaving arise. It doesSlavery passed away,

that tax like thenot one here in wasappear any everquestiona¿lirect uniform,treatedor as tax. Thisregarded by Congress

of theconstruction Constitution so•practical touching importantsoa a thepoint, through execu-long period, legislative andbyof the not'conchisive,-istive departments government, though

consideration ofa great weight.are fourThere this courtadjudications to .be considered.by

an if conclusive,not ahave toimportant, theThey applicationcase in hand. In v. United States aHylton tax had(supra),.been laid' The in in-upon errorpleásure-carriages. plaintiff

void,sisted that the was it tax,because was a direct.tax andbeen the,had not the States asapportioned among required by

case,Constitution, where such taxes are The wasimposed.on both counsel of eminence andargued, sides-by 'Itability.

was Wilson, Paterson,heard and determined fourby judges,—•Chase, and Iredell. dis-_The first named hadthree beenv.

Springer600 v. States.United Ct.[Sup.

■members of the constitutionaltinguished convention. Wilsonon thewas committee that the draft of thereported completed

instrument, and advocated its thein' Statewarmly adoptionconvention of The fourth awas of-member'Pennsylvania.the convention of North Carolina that the Constitu-adopted

■tion. The was decided in Thecase 1795. unanijudges weremous. The tax was held not to be a direct tax. Each judge

.adelivered Their was on theseparate opinion; judgment putChase,indicated Mr. inJustice the•ground by extractfollowing

from his opinion: —:me“It that a tax on cannotappears-to be laidcarriages by

ofthe 'rule without very great andapportionment inequalityForinjustice. two inexample, States censussuppose equal tothousand dollars each a tax on ofpay eighty by carriages eight

dollars on and in one State there are- onecarriage; hun-everyin theaiid other one thousand. Thecarriages, owners ofdred

in one wouldState times the tax ofcarriáges ownersten inpayState,A.,the other. in one for hiswould pay carriage eight

dollars; B., State,but in would for histhe.other pay carriagedollars.”eighty

• wellIt was held that where such evils would attend the appor-tax,of a Constitutiontionment could not have intendedthe.

that an should be made. This viewapportionment appliestowith even force taxthe in ingreater this case.question

the is andWhere the incomes fewarepopulation large andsmall, would be intolerably oppressive.it.

communities,The in ofdifference the without refer-abilitynumbers,ence to taxes is remarkedpay anyto forcibly upon

hisMcCulloh in article on taxation in theby EncyclopaediaBritannica, vol. xxi. 75:ed.)(old p.

Mr. further,Justice saidChase “That he would give nothe butjudicial opinion upon thatsubject, he'was inclined to

think that the taxesdirect thecontemplated by Constitution—two, a tax tax land.”were'only capitation and-a on

tax',Justice Iredell said: a direct in“Perhaps.Mr. theConstitution,of thesense can mean but a tax onnothing

annexed the soil. . .something inseparably . A'land orto.tax be ofpoll may .considered this The latterdescription. is

considered,to under thebe.-so particularly Constitu-present

Springer 601v. States.Oct. United1880.]

States, whotion, theon- account in Southernthe slavesof.of threein the in theá ratio proportiongive representation

to five.”doubt'asaid, never entertainedMr. Justice Paterson he

the“that the nothe would only, objects.con-principal, sayofthe within the rule ap-Constitution astemplated fallingbyFromwere a and a tax on land.”taxportionment, capitation

the other no dissent.these views expressedjudges“ Ellsworth, morn-sworn into thatthe Chief Justice office

whole declined takingnot heard the argument,havinging,Wall; ill-health,the decision.” fromin 8 545. Cushing,part

that ifnot sit in the case. It has been remarked theydidresult,dissatisfied the the involvedbeenhad questionwith

have beenso adoubtless wouldbeing important, reargum'ent■had.

the taxesCo. Soule Wall. 433),In Insurance v. (7Pacificof fromwere the such companiesin question upon receipts

added,.assessments,and all made orsumsand uponpremiumsor Thisthe to funds.theirduring year, surplus cbntingent

taxes,the taxesheld that were not directcourt unanimouslythat were valid.and they

underv. the tax cameIn Bank Fenno whichVeazie (supra),was one ten cent notes of Stateof theper uponconsideration

banks, or The sameout other National.Statebybanks paidwere court as in case.reached the theconclusions precedingby

Chase the of the court.Justice delivered opinionMr. Chiefof his elaborate examination of hethe course the subjectIn

that,be in the con­said, “It affirmedmay practicalrightlyof the Constitution direct taxes haveCongress,struction by

and and taxes onto taxes on landbeen limited appurtenancesor taxes.”capitationpolls,

thev. tax a331),Rew involved wasIn Wall.Scholey (23tax, 30,1864,ofthe acts of JuneCongressimposedsuccession by

13, that the not a direct1866. It was held tax wasand Julyvalid;it andtax, that was constitutional Inand delivering

court, Justice'Clifford,the Mr. after remarkingthe ofopinion“tax,was not a said: In­there in directthe taxthat question

orthat, tax authorizedis an excise byofstead .it plainly duty,Constitution, which the in1, 8, of the vests powersect. art.

Springer v. United602. States. Ct.[Sup.

to taxes, duties,and collectCongress andlay excisesimposts,to the debts and for thepay defence andprovide common.

welfare.”publicHe said houses, lands,further: “Taxes on and other per-

manent real estate have been deemed to be directalwaystaxes, and taxes, thecapitation words of’the Con-by expressstitution, are within the but itsame has nevercategory;been decided that other exaction^ for theany legal sup-

of theport Federal fall within the condition thatgovernmentunless laid in to numbers the is in-propprtion assessmentvalid.”

All these cases are in from theundistinguishable principlecase us,now -before and are decisive thethey against plaintiffin error.

- tax,The what is a direct is onequestion, inexclusivelyAmerican The text-writers of thejurisprudence. arecountryin entire-accord upon.the subject.

Mr. Justice all taxes are dividedStory says into twousually— —classes, those which are direct and those' which aré indirect,

“and that under the former denomination are included taxeson and,land or real latter,under the taxes on con-property,

Const.,1 sect. 950.sumption.”■ Kent,Chancellor of the case ofspeaking Hylton v. United

“States, The bettersays: to be that theopinion'seemed directtaxes two;the Constitution werecontemplated by viz., aonly

of tax and a tax oncapitatipn land.” 1poll Com. 257. SeeTaxation,also 5, 2;noteCooley, Law, 157;Const.p. Pomeroy,

;308, note;Sharswood’s Rawle,'Blackstone, Const. 30 Ser­Const. 305.-geant,

We are not aware writer,that since v.any Hylton Uniteddecided,States was has a view of the differ­expressed subject

ent from that of these authors.are, taxes,Our thatconclusions direct within the ofmeaning

Constitution,the taxes,are as inonly capitation thatexpressedinstrument, estate;and taxes on real and the tax ofthat whichthe error isplaintiff within thecomplainsin. ofcategory an.

or. ;excise Law,Const.duty. Pomeroy, 177 InsurancePacificSoule,Co. Rew,v. and v.Scholey supra.

considerations, scale,the in one in favor ofAgainst these

603'v. Choüteau.UnitedOct. States1880.]

other, counter-as áin thewhat has beenpropositions, placedinis, of such weight,Our answer nothingpoise? certainly

our as tojudgment, require special reply.anyofThe from foreign politicalnumerous citations the writings

error,economists, an-in are sufficientlymade theby plaintiffreferred to.swered in his beforeHamilton brief,by

Judgment affirmed.

v. Chouteau.United States

distiller,by A.,by upontbe a executed aIn an United States bond1. actionsureties, assigned in'the the declara-his breaches of the conditionand

were, first, by omittingcomplaint to' make certain entries intion'or thatRey.he, by 3303, Stat., required keep,to he- waswhich sect. wasa book

defraud, defraud,and United of the tax im-to did the Statesenabled• distillery; and,.second,by upon spirits produced thatthe at -hisposed law

spirits produced distilleryat hisof sect. 3296he had removedviolationinwarehouse,distillery without taxplace than the' thereona other thetoassignmentpaid. answeredhaving first To the first thebeen defendants

allegations, averringdenjdng.its and that whatever fraud wasby com-charged.through thanother means those To thewas effectedmitted

answered, broughtthey that two bills ofbefore the suit was indict-secondof,complainedment, spirits were foundsame removals of nowfor the

A., containing upon uponand sectionsagainst one counts said section6440, Attorney-Gen-uponand of theand that the recommendation3281

Secretary Treasury,the advice of the of the the Commfssioneranderalsum,specified compromise,accepted him a in afromof Internal Revenue

satisfaction, indictments, thereuponof the which wereand settlement dis-Uponby aabandoned the United States. demurrer to themissed and

—answer, Held, that the answer was a bar to the action.prescribedQucere, only -recovery penalty byfor thewhether the mode the of2.

by3296is indictment.notsect.

to tbe Court tbe forCircuit of United States tbeErrorofDistrict Missouri.Eastern

distiller,-a bond of ais action tbeTbis upon against prin-an.sureties, is founded sects. and 3296and 3303uponcipal'and

Tbe bond is in tbe sum oftbe Statutes.of Revised penal■ that, tbe,$26,000, and, G.after Josephreciting principal,

intends, 1874,Chouteau, after tbe first of to beday May,