Show nights EIGHTS OF or As ASSESSORS OF or OP or all ail alithe the devices resorted to by governments ern ments for increasing their revenues none seem to be so generally obnoxious ald ald distasteful to th the e people as the income tax and it ia is perhaps safe to say sky that attempts to evade it cause more perjury and falsehood than any other method of taxation or than all others combined why this repugnance should be so general it its is rather difficult to explain for it is not to be supposed that the aggregate of taxation would be rendered greater or less lesa by its abolition for so long as a certain amount of rev denue is necessary to carry on the expenses of any government that revenue must bel be levied lovied and collected in some form or other from the inhabitants dwelling under it and none of such ought to bo be against contributing their share towards defraying the public burdens the cause of this very general repugnance to the tax on incomes is ia probably owing to the fact that it Is a i erect direct tax and such imposts whether income or poll tax are always distasteful if a government officer come along aloag and directly demands three five or ten per cent of the earnings ot of an individual it is regarded with far more disfavor than double that amount would be if levied ia in an indirect manner to this distaste of direct taxation is to be attributed the fact of the prosecutions that occasionally take place through attempted evasion of the income tax and the petitions that are now being presented to congress from various quarters for its abolition in some instances there is little doubt that the assessors and collectors of the internal revenue tax knowing themselves to be backed by the power of the government assume more authority than the powers of their office warrant and by so doing render themselves unnecessarily sari y obnoxious in proof of thisbe this we not frequently nn hear of these officers after administering the oath to business men demanding the night right to I 1 inspect na P act their ledgers or private accounts su such buch eh a procedure has given rise to considerable sid erable controversy the opinion of the taxed being that when the officer has administered the oath the test prescribed by law ho he has gone as far as his authority warrants him and that tho he law is then satisfied some borne of this class of public servants however have determined upon examining private business accounts and in a very few cases this has led to litigation A case of the kind was tried recently before judge cadwallader in the city of philadelphia and ss vs it is a subject of more than ordinary interest to the generality of business men both in this and other sections we append the chief points of the argument in the case and the result before our readers the defendants were george doll co importers of faiq faney fancy goods mr sharpless shar pless was their attorney and from the report of the proceedings as reported in the post his arguments against assessors of revenue having the authority to examine the accounts of those whom they assess were based on the follow following ng grounds first that the section of the act of june juno 1864 1861 under which the income tax is levied is unconstitutional and void as undertaking to levy a capitation or at all events a direct tax by tho the rulo of uniformity and not that of apportionment second that so much of the fourteenth section of the same feame act as invests the assessor with power to compel a citizen who has one a made his return rutur n of income un under der oath to produce his books dooks and give evidence iii regard to tho same fame after its correctness has been challe chaile challenged ngod by the officer is unconstitutional tut ional and void as infringing upon tho the provision of a fifth amendments of 1789 constitution of tile tho united states nor shall aily ally person 6 be compelled in any criminal case to lp 9 W witness ness against himself third that the power sought to be conferred upon the assessor by le the tho last section is really taj judicial power of the united states whit it by the constitution can ean oaly ohly be exer exercised exorcised ciseL byj by judges holding their omia ovia for the term ot good behavior and not by ofil cers cors who are removable at any moment k probably at the discretion of the president certainly at that of the president and S senate en foli fell fourth rth nth that the proceedings lings aings authorized by the same section are an infringement of f the citizens constitutional right ot of federal trial by jury in every crim criminal inal inai case the federal legislature cannot create a new now criminal unknown to the tho common law or our statute law at the time of the adoption of the constitution and which was not then punishable punishably hable hablo summarily by attachment as for a conte contempt ampt 11 and provide for its ascertainment and punishment now by any other than the ordinary machinery of a trial by byl jury juny ury ary at common law fifth the extraordinary remedies provided by the same section are not to be used in reassessing income duties is occasion to reassess them it is to be done under the listh section of the same act I 1 which contains no provision for an attachment tach ment cht ent as for a contempt the court decided the case casein in favor of the defendants it is doubtful however about this decision being accepted as a final solution of the question should it not bo be so it is is not likely that tile the demand of the assessors asies assessors sors to investigate the business or private accounts of those to whom they administer the oath prescribed in such cases eases by law will ever be conceded until the highest uricial authority in inthe the lan ian land dilie the supreme reme court of the united states has haa decided that they have the tho authority t 3 do so 60 |