amount of their quota of the direct tax of eighteen hundred and sixty-one, on account of the proper costs for assuming the collection of the same, as follows, to wit: To the State of California, thirty-seven thousand one hundred and ninety-one dollars and seventeen cents; to the State of Oregon, five thousand two hundred and seventy-one dollars and ten cents; and to the State of Nevada, six hundred and eighty-eight dollars and ninety cents; in all, forty-three thousand one hundred and fiftyone dollars and seventeen cents." California has been charged with her quota, $254,538.67, and cred ited with deposits made on the account, $247,941.13; leaving a balance nominally due to the United States, $6,597.54. The deficiency-act of July 7, 1884 (23 Stat., 239), in stating the sum requisite for the purpose mentioned therein, made it too small as to said State, by $989.63. The following question, therefore, is presented to the First Comptroller for his decision thereon :-In adjusting the account of the State of California, shall the State have credit, (1) for the fifteen per centum of her said quota, or (2) only for the sum specifically named for the purpose! The fifteen per centum mentioned in said act amounts to $38,180.80; the sum specifically named therein is $37,191.17; the difference being $989.63. DECISION BY WILLIAM LAWRENCE, First Comptroller. The amount of $37,191.17, named in the deficiency-appropriation-act of July 7, 1884 (23 Stat., 239), is fifteen per centum on the sum of $247,941.13 actually paid by the State of California on her quota of $254,538.67 of the direct tax apportioned by the direct-tax act of August 5, 1861 (12 Stat., 296). Said sum of $37,191.17 is not fifteen per centum of said quota. The deficiency act says that this sum is appropriated "to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the" State of California fifteen per centum of the amount of" her "quota of the direct tax of eighteen hundred and sixty-one." But the sum appropriated in terms is not fifteen per centum of her quota. It is only fifteen per centum of the amount of her quota paid by the State. If the sum of $37,191.17 be now held as the amount which Congress intended to appropriate, this would defeat the purpose of Congress, as indicated by the words, "to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the fornia the fifteen per centum of the amount of [her] quota." If "the fifteen per centum of the amount of [her] quota" be taken as the amount which Congress intended to ap propriate, then it exceeds the sum specifically named as appropriated in the act. If no specific amount had been stated in the act, it would have been ascertained by computing fifteen per centum of the quota. Here there are two indicia, or forms of expression, either one of which, standing alone, is sufficient to indicate a clear purpose, and to fix a definite sum; but both cannot be applied, because they would produce conflicting results. In such case the only question to be decided is, * * [State] of Cali * * amount. what was the purpose of Congress? It may be conceded, that, generally, the specific sum named will control other words descriptive of an But in this case the controlling purpose of Congress was, to give to the States named in the act of July 7, 1884 (23 Stat., 239), an allowance of fifteen per centum of their respective quotas of the direct tax of 1861. See Swift Co. v. United States (105 U. S., 691; S. C., 14 Ct. Cl., 481; s. c., 111 U. S., 22; s. c., 18 Ct. Cl., 42). This had been done for the State of Kansas by the act of August 5, 1882 (22 Stat., 261), with a clause, as follows: "To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the State of Kansas fifteen per centum of the amount of her quota of the direct tax of eighteen hundred and sixty-one, on account of the proper costs for assuming the collection of the same, ten thousand seven hundred and sixty-one dollars and fifty cents." See Kansas case (2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 301–326.) Congress intended to place the States named on an equal footing, and to do "equal and exact justice to all." The sums appropriated to Oregon and Nevada respectively are just fifteen per centum of the quota of each of those States. The conclusion reached in this case is supported by the opinion of the First Comptroller in Jordan's case (3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 274). The Court of Claims did not concur in that opinion, but held otherwise in the same case (19 Ct. Cl., —), which is now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Secretary of the Treasury concurred in the opinion of the First Comptroller (Jordan's case, 4 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 586). That opinion is now re-affirmed, and will be applied in all like cases hereafter, unless the Supreme Court shall adopt a different rule. Chapter VIII of Hardcastle on Statutory Law cites many authorities which support . the view now taken. See Bliss's case (ante, 38). In stating the account of the State of California, it will be charged with $6,597.54 remaining unpaid of its quota of the direct tax, and credited with $38,180.80.* TREASURY DEPARTMENT, First Comptroller's Office, July 23, 1884. The following will afford information upon the subject-matter of this case: [48th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Ex. Doc. No. 142.] "Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, in answer to Senate resolution of March 28, 1884, statement of war tax of 1861, unpaid, and measures to collect the same. "APRIL 1, 1884.-Referred to the Committee on Finance and ordered to be printed. "TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 29, 1884. "SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a resolution passed by the Senate of the United States on the 28th instant, as follows: 666 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to advise the Senate what amount of the war tax of 1861 is due and unpaid; from what States, or from the citizens of what States due; whether any portion of said tax, and, if so, what portion, has been paid by witholding moneys due to any State or States from the General Government; and whether the rule adopted in withholding such moneys has been applied alike to all the States.' In reply thereto I have the honor to inclose a statement showing what amount of the war tax of 1861 is due and unpaid; from what States due; and the portion thereof which has been paid by withhholding moneys due to States from the General Government and by collections through the direct-tax commissioners. "The rule adopted in withholding moneys due from the General Government has been applied alike to all the States. Very respectfully, "CHAS. J. FOLGER, "Secretary. "UNPAID WAR TAXES. Statement of the condition of the direct-tax accounts of the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia, under acts of August 5, 1861, and June 7, 1862. * Included on compromise. 904,875 33 71, 743 33 2, 603, 918 67 +208,479 65 384,274 80 71, 743 33 606,641 03 268, 515 12 357,702 10 371, 299 83 700,894 14 426,498 83 92,245 40 74, 742 57 646,958 23 19, 312 00 4,592 67 185,645 67 382, 614 83 62, 648 00 2,213, 330 86 386, 194 45 1, 332, 025 93 35, 140 67 1,654, 711 43 99, 419 11 387,722 06 130, 008 06 171,982 70 107,054 30 63, 123 90 65,523 50 123, 687 19 75, 264 50 16, 278 60 411,869 10 (See note.) 32,761 00 67,519 17 (See note.) 390,587 81 117, 371 55 338, 342 10 190,000 22 235,063 40 292, 007 90 281, 775 94 225, 098 61 26,982 00 213, 501 30 7,755 33 519, 688 67 179, 407 80 31,660 20 27, 172 72 39,346 43 $14,390 63 3, 487 17 51,145 56 Joint resolution February 25, 1867, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer $208,479.65 of the amount originally appropriated to Virginia to the State of West Virginia. “Letter from the First Comptroller to the Secretary of the Treasury, recommending the pas-· sage of bills H. R. No. 110 and Senate No. 795, To adjust certain accounts between the United States and the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia.' "TREASURY DEPARTMENT, "FIRST COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE. "Washington, D. C., May 2, 1884. Hon. CHARLES J. FOLGER, Secretary of the Treasury: "SIR: I have the honor to state that I have received a letter from the Hon. Wade Hampton, of the Senate of the United States, dated 24th ult., transmitting to me a copy of Senate Bill No. 795, 'to adjust certain accounts between the United States and the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia,' and asking me to give my views on it. "I have also received a letter dated 25th ult. from the Hon. Barclay Henley, of the House of Representatives, transmitting a copy of House Bill No. 110, which is in form similar to said Senate bill. "This latter letter is addressed to you and to me jointly, 'to be furnished with the views' of the Treasury Department and with mine also in relation thereto. "The object of these bills is to remit, so far as not collected or paid, the direct taxes laid upon and apportioned to the States, Territories, and District of Columbia under the Direct tax act of August 5, 1861, and to refund to such States, Territories, and District, respectively, the amount of such taxes, so far as paid in any mode what ever. "I have considered the subject with care, and now have the honor to state that, in my judgment, it is alike just, judicious, and practicable to remit all such taxes not yet collected, to refund the amounts paid in any form by any State or Territory, and to refund to private persons or their legal representatives all amounts of such tax by them paid, or collected by sale of real estate, or otherwise. "I have accordingly prepared the draft of a bill to effect these objects, which I have the honor to submit for your consideration. "I will briefly state some of the reasons in support of the views above presented. The amounts apportioned to States which have not in any form paid or been credited with any sums as the accounts stand in this office are as follow: "These are the sums charged against the States and Territories mentioned, all of which, as stated, appear by the records of this office as unpaid. It is proper to say, however, as to all these, except Alabama, Dakota, New Mexico, and Utah, that payments for each have been made into the Treasury by Direct Tax Commissioners, which have not been settled in this office. "Most of these payments are shown in the letter of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue appended to the Georgia case, 4 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 380. So, to a limited extent, other payments have been made, but not yet credited. "I. As to the amounts thus apportioned, and which remain unpaid, only three things can be done : "I. They can be paid by an increase of taxes in these States if they should respectively assume payment; "2. Or they can be paid by enforcing collection by act of Congress of assessments against the real estate of private owners thereof; or "3. They can be left uncollected. "1st. It is certainly well understood that the burden of taxation under State and local authority in these States is such that it cannot be desirable to increase it. It 23 DEC, VOL 5—22 it not at all certain that these States would increase and collect taxes for this purpose. With the general feeling which now so fortunately prevails in favor of Congressional aid to States to promote common-school education, it is quite.evident that Congress will not require any such taxes to be levied. "There is no necessity now for requiring the payment of these amounts. The revenues of the Government are more than abundant, and it is not at all probable that conditions will ever exist to require the payments of these amounts. "2d. The same reasons operate against enforced collections under the authority of an act of Congress. In fact, it is believed that there is no desire now on the part of any class of citizens that the payment of this tax should be enforced. This in part grows out of the considerations, having almost universal assent, that direct taxes are unequal, and hence unjust. “The apportionment against States is made on the basis of population, and not wealth, and is hence unequal as between States. "When collection is enforced by authority of Congress against real estate, the inequality and injustice are aggravated, because the burden is imposed on a species of property generally less productive of profit than any other, and hence least able to bear it; and chattel wealth, including a vast amount of corporate resources, constituting in all a large proportion of the aggregate of all forms of property, totally es capes from all burden, while requiring and receiving more of the protecting care of Government, and hence realizing benefits at the expense of the owners of real estate. "The objectionable character of direct taxes is shown by the fact that they have been authorized but three times since the adoption of the Constitution. And although the act of August 5, 1861 [12 Stat., 294], provided that a direct tax of twenty millions of dollars be and is anunally laid upon the United States,' yet the purpose to collect all beyond one year has been abandoned. "It may then be assumed that the direct taxes collected were unequal and unjust, as between the States, and still more so among the property owners of the United States. "A wrong having thus been done, it should be repaired by remitting the taxes not collected, and refunding those collected, upon the same principle sanctioned in many statutes of remitting taxes improperly assessed, and of refunding those which have been improperly collected. 3d. The result will undoubtedly be, that the amounts of direct tax not yet paid will remain unpaid. "II. In view of all this the inquiry is now presented, whether anything, and if so, what, should be done as to (1) the States which have assumed and paid their respective quotas of the direct tax; and (2) as to those in which sums allowed by accounting officers in their favor, respectively, have been withheld and credited ou account of the quota of such State. "It seems to me advisable to refund to such States the amount so assumed and paid or withheld. This view is supported by all the considerations already mentioned, which show the inexpediency of enforcing payment in the States, the quotas of which have not been paid. The policy of refunding is supported by the manifest injustice of retaining money collected as direct taxes from some States from which others are exempt. "Equality of burdens as among the States, in those cases in which they are imposed in fixed proportions directly upon the real estate therein, is simple justice. "In such cases inequality is injustice. "Assuming that no more of the direct tax should be collected, the only mode of securing equality is to refund the direct taxes collected. If this refund should be made, States would receive money substantially as follows: |