Rensselaer Union, Volume 11, Number 5, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 October 1878 — Law Without Justice [ARTICLE]

Law Without Justice

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Calitornia on the question of paying illegal taxes under duress presents a legal enormity which is none less outrageous for being, we believe, universal. Similar cases are liable to occur anywhere, and do occasionally occur in other States beside California. Wills, a tax-payer, sued Austin, Hie Collector, for taxes illegally demanded and paid. The law under which the taxes were demanded was believed to be unconstitutional, because it gave to the Board of Equalization powers of assessment and taxation; but as the Collector threatened to sell the plaintiff’s property the plaintiff paid the claim, under protest, and subseqnently sued the Collector to recover the money. The case went to the Supreme Court, and that tribunal decided; First, that the tax was illegal; and second, that the plaintiff had no remedy. The court say that the law under which the tax was levied cannot stand; “ the whole section is unconstitutional, and void per se;" that, as a consequence, 1 if the Collector had sold the property, “his deed would have been void on its face; 1 ’ and “for these reasons, when tbe plaintiff paid the money to the defendant he was under no legal duress, and the payment must be deemed to have been voluntary. In such cases it is Well settled that the money cannot be recovered back.” Let us not be in haste to laugh at this example of California law. It is Missouri law, too; it is, if we mistake not, universal law— and universal injustice. It is absurd to hold, as the courts do hold, that the tax-paver is not bound to pay. an illegal tax levied under a void law, and that there is no duress in the case; and it is equally absurd to say that the tax payer should know the law was unconstitutional. JftQiy.ijftß_h.e know_Bnch a thing when ■tbe'te'gislature that made the law did not know it—and when, in the present California case, the Circuit Court itself did not know it? It i« the climax of mockery for courts to solemnly declare "It a duty of every unlearned tax-payer in the land to correctly adjudicate revenue laws when, in five cases'out of ten, it is a toss of a copper how the Supreme tribunal itself will adjudicate it, and when the chances are even that theiower cotirt will interpret it one way and the Supreme Court the other. It is true, the tax-payer may refuse to pay and allow the Collector to sell his property; but this brings a cloud on his title, deprives him of the power to .-sell and invxd.ves.him in an expensive, protracted and harassing lawsuit bei side. All this may be nothing in the estimation of a Supreme Judge, but it is a great deal iu the ey iS of an ordinary tax-payer. Beside, the doctrine as laid down leads logically to endless litigation, for it encourages eyery tax- 1 payer to resist every tax until it shall j have been finally determined to bp valid by a Supreme Court. !Tv Justice requires that a citizen who pays an illegal tax to a Collector ought to nave a right bo recover it by prompt process, without any judicial tomfoolery, abdif thelaw'does not conform to this it ought to be made tO.-Afts-souri Jiejrublican. I 1 j— - ■ 1 ”*■ Indians are not at all conta<notts. ; They are very lu*r4 catch. Q