In the first act referred to above, that of 1862, in the disregard of the limitations of the Constitution which was so common while the government was exercising its war powers, ap in the assessor. The act of 1864, however, recognized the unconstitutionality of such an appointment, and vested the appointment in the secretary of the treasury. the Committee on Codes, a lawyer greatly interested in the work of law reform, and who had to a considerable extent made a study of the question of procedure. It is understood to have the approval of a very large number of the mem-pointment of the assistant assessors was vested bers of the Legislature who have examined its features. The bill provides that it shall go into effect on the first day of July, the object being that a six months' trial of its provisions may be made before the convening of the next Legislature, a time sufficiently long to test its good qualities and commend it as a basis for further revision in case it is successful; and not so long but that in case it fails to accomplish the object brought about, no serious inconvenience will be suffered by members of the bar by reason of the change of practice. The point of the revision lies in its condensation of the language and simplification of the methods of the present statute. In that it is brief, vigorous and clear, it can scarcely fail to be an improvement and marked advance upon the present Code. The Constitution provides that the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint all officers of the United States whose appointment is not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The first section of the act of March 3, 1865, amended the act of 1864 so that appointments of assistant assessors were to be made by the assessors. This act having soon afterward been brought to the attention of the attorney-general, the Hon. James Speed, he rendered an opinion to the secretary of the treasury. It held that the act, so far as it attempted to vest the ap The Internal Revenue Record contains an article by Thomas Harland, who for six years was a deputy commissioner of internal revenue, commenting on the practical difficulties of collecting the income tax. In opening, Mr. Har-pointment of assistant assessors in the assessor, land writes: "A careful examination of those provisions of the act of Congress of August 25, 1894. which provide for a tax upon incomes leads to the conclusion that the machinery provided for its assessment is so inadequate that the government will be practically powerless to collect the tax unless it is willing to accept such returns as taxpayers may voluntarily make, without any attempt to verify the correctness of such returns." The next step is to show that the deputy collectors provided for in the Income Tax law of 1893 are not officers of the United States," and that only officers of the United States can lawfully perform the duties which that act seeks to make incumbent upon deputy collect was unconstitutional. The recent act, in its twenty-ninth section, attempts to authorize a deputy collector to increase the amount of any return if he has It reason to believe the same is understated. is also by the same section made the duty of the deputy collector to make the list according to the best information he can obtain in case Under the proviso of a failure to make return. to that section, if the deputy collector be satisfied of the truth of a declaration made by a taxpayer that he has been assessed elsewhere, or that he was not possessed of an income of $4,000, the person shall be exempt. No deductions claimed in certain cases are to be made or allowed until approved by the collector or deputy collector. Any person feeling aggrieved by the decision of the deputy collector may appeal to the collector. All these provisions manifestly contemplate the performance by the deputy collector of the quasi judicial functions formerly devolved upon the assessor and his assistants, and which were, by the act of 1872, transferred to the commission ers. taxpayer to seek the assistant assessor and deliver his return.'" Mr. Harland observes that the provisions of section 34 of the present act are new, and finds that the second provision of that section is substantially identical with one in the act of 1864, amended in the year 1866 so as to provide that if any person failed to render the annual return at the time fixed by law the assistant assessor should serve a notice requiring the return to be made within ten days, and the act then proceeds as follows: "And if any person, on being notified or required as aforesaid, shall refuse or neglect to render such list or return within the time required as aforesaid, or if any As the old law provided that the assistant assessors should go through the districts and make lists of the persons liable to pay any tax, the present law requires the deputy collectors to do the same thing. As the old law required the assistant assessor to make a list for any person who should consent to disclose the particulars of his business, the present law provides that the deputy collector may do the same thing. As the old law provided that when any person neglected to render any return or rendered a false return, the assistant assessor should, according to the best information which he could obtain, make the return. so the present law requires the deputy collector to do this same thing, and section 35 provides that when-person, without notice, as aforesaid, shall not ever a deputy collector shall believe that a true and correct return of the income of a corporation has not been made, the deputy collector shall, if the corporation refuse to exhibit its books, make, from such information as he can obtain, an assessment of the amount of income, which said assessment shall be In the lawful assessment of such income. Mr. Harland claims that the duty imposed on the taxpayer of making a return is fully dis charged if he delivers the return to the officer when the latter calls at the residence or place of business of the taxpayer; he says: "Now, what was the contemporaneous construction of the old acts? It was uniformly held that no penalty was incurred, in the case of annual taxes, unless the taxpayer failed to make the return after being served with the notice requiring him to make such return. Thus on the 26th of April, 1866, the commissioner issued instructions for the collection of the annual taxes of that year, and he says: 'Assessors should instruct their assistants to call personally upon those who have not returned their income on the first Monday in May. If any person is not at home, the notice on the back of form 24 (being the same notice as that referred to above from Boutwell's Manual) should be filled out and the blank left. This being done, it becomes the duty of the deliver a monthly or other list or return at the time required by law," it shall be lawful for the assessor to summon such person to appear and answer interrogatories, etc. Then, once more recalling that it is only after a person has been notified, and still neglects to render a return, that he is liable to be summoned before a collector, he proceeds to quote a statute now on the books as making this provision: 66 When any person refuses or neglects to render any return required by law, the collector or deputy collector shall make the return, obtain, including that derived from the evidence according to the best information which he can elicited by the examination of the collector. And the section further provides that in case of neglect occasioned by sickness or absence, the collector may allow such further time for making or delivering such list or return as he may deem necessary, not exceeding thirty days. This further time that the collector may allow is evidently not intended to have reference to the special date fixed by law for the return, with the fixing of which the collector has nothing to do, but is intended to mean furthur and beyond the ten days following the collector's original notice." It seems clear from all this that, so far as any duty is imposed upon the taxpayer by the terms of section 34, that duty is fully performed if he makes the return when called upon by the officer. Still another consideration presented is that, under the new law, it cannot be said that any a return duty is imposed upon the taxpayer of making The choice is left to him whether to make a return or to disclose the facts to the officer, and allow the officer to make the return. If he chooses the latter course, he complies with the law as fully as if he prepared the return himself. Taking the two sections, 29 and 34, together, it is plainly the duty of any court which may be called upon to construe the act, to consider the two sections together, and, if possible, to put such construction as will reconcile the two; and inasmuch as section 29 prescribed no time upon which the return shall be made, it would seem that the two sections should be construed together, and the duty imposed by section 29 should be regarded as precisely the same as that imposed by section 34. But if the true construction of section 29 is such as to make it conflict with the provisions of section 34, it is plain, in accordance with the well-settled principles for the construction of statutes that section 34 must prevail. In writing of the returns of corporations, Mr. Harland contends: First. While the law calls upon the taxpayer to make a return or to consent to disclose the particulars of his business, it does not require the taxpayer in the first place to seek the officer, but does require the officer to seek the taxpayer. thus called upon by a deputy, insists upon his rights to have the officer make the return, then it would be necessary for the collector himself to arrange an interview with the taxpayer. If the collector himself should call upon a taxpayer, the return must be at once made or the disclosure at once offered. If either a collector or a deputy collector calls at the residence or place of business of a taxpayer when he is absent, and leaves the ten-day notice, it would then be necessary for the taxpayer, within the ten days. to seek the collector, and either render his return or disclose the particulars of his business. This course being followed, no penalty will be incurred. Hon. William M. Springer of Springfield, Ill., has been recently appointed judge of the United States Court for the Northern District of the Indian Territory by President Cleveland. Judge Springer was a member of the General Assembly of Illinois of 1870-72. He has served for many years in Congress and taken a prominent part in the debates, and been an acknowledged leader of the Democratic party in that body. He was chairman of the banking and currency committee in the last Congress and of the ways and means committee in the preceding Congress. He has always kept up his legal reading, and has been counsel before the United States Supreme Court in many cases during his Congressional career. Judge Springer was born in New Lebanon, Indiana. May 30, 1836, removing to Jacksonville, Illinois, in 1848. After being graduated from the University of Indiana in 1858, he was admitted to the bar in 1859, December 28, taking up his residence in Springfield, where he has resided ever since. He was secretary of the State Constitutional Convention in 1862, served in the Legislature in 1871-2, and enIn 1876 Mr. Springer was a member of the tered Congress as a Democrat March 4, 1875. Potter committee for investigation of the dis Second. If the taxpayer chooses to disclose the particulars instead of making his own returns, the law makes it the duty of the officer to make his return. That duty is precisely the same as that imposed upon the officer if no return is made, except that in the one case his official action is based upon the disclosures made by the taxpayer himself, and in the other upon such information as he can otherwise obtain. In either case the making the return in-puted election, and of the joint committee that volves a determination of what is the amount of taxable income, and this is an official function which cannot be performed by a deputy collector. The taxpayer has, therefore, the right to require that his disclosures be made to and that the return be made by the collector himself. Deputy collectors can lawfully perform those duties which the law imposes upon the collectors which are purely ministerial in their nature, and if a taxpayer is called upon by a deputy collector, and delivers to such deputy a return, this return may be delivered by the deputy to the collector, and an assessment based upon it will be sufficient; but if the taxpayer, when reported the electoral commission bill. He has served on many important committees. committee on territories, he secured favorable In the Fiftieth Congress, as chairman of the action on the bills for the organization of Okla| homa and for the admission of the Dakotas, Montana and Washington, as States. eral years he strongly advocated tariff reform. Standing next to Mr. Mills on the ways and means committee at the time of the introduc For sev tion of the Mills bill, he was given the chairmanship of that committee in the Fifty-second and Mills for the speakership had rendered the Congress, after the heated fight between Crisp latter's appointment impossible. In the Fiftythird Congress Springer was superseded as chairman by Mr. Wilson. Article II of Title II. Chapter XVI - Sections 2015-2066 of THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO INQUIRE INTO SEC. 1991. The writ of habeas corpus. 1992. Who may prosecute the writ. tion. 1995. Application for writ; how and to whom made. 1996. Contents of petition. SEC. 2014. When prisoner discharged not to be reimprisoned; when he may be. 2015. When appeal may be taken under this article. 2016. Prisoner who appeals may be admitted to bail. 2017. Recognizance of prisoner. 2018. Custody of prisoner until he gives bail. 2019. When recognizance to be valid for an adjournment, etc. 2020. Penalty for refusing copy of process, etc. 2021. Contempt, in what cases. SECTION 1991. The writ of habeas corpus.-The provisions of this article regulate the proceedings upon all writs of habeas corpus. The writ must be issued under the seal of the court by which it is granted or of the court of which the judge or justice granting it is a member, except that when returnable in the Supreme Court it must be under the seal of that court. It must be issued on behalf of the people of the State, but if issued on the application of a private person, it must show that it was issued on the relation of such person. The judge granting the 1997. When writ to be granted, and when writ or presiding at the term at which it was returnable. 1998. Contents of writ. 1999. Mode of service; fees and undertak- 2000. Mode of service other than personal. 2002. Prisoners to be produced and return 2003. Proceedings on disobedience of writ. 2005. Warrant to bring up prisoner about 2006. When offender to be arrested; execu- 2008. Proceedings on return of habeas cor- 2009. When prisoner to be discharged in 2010. Prisoner may controvert return; granted must indorse an allowance thereof with the date of such allowance, and it shall be tested in his name. (§§ 1992, 1994, 1996, 2066.) § 1992. Who may prosecute the writ.—A person within the State, imprisoned or restrained of his liberty for any cause or upon any pretense, is entitled, except in one of the cases hereinafter specified, to a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint, and in a case prescribed by law of delivering him therefrom. (§ 2015 in part.) § 1993. When the writ will be granted.—A person is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus unless the time for which he may legally be detained has expired: (1) When he has been committed or is detained by virtue of a mandate issued by a court or a judge of the United States, in a case where such courts or judges have exclusive jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, or have acquired exclusive jurisdiction by the commencement of legal proceedings in such a court. (2) Where he has 2011. Custody of prisoner pending the pro- been committed, or is detained, by virtue of a final ceedings. judgment, order or decree of a competent tribunal 2012. Proceedings upon irregular commit- of civil or criminal jurisdiction, including the pro ment. 2013. Order substituted for writ of dis- ceedings for a criminal contempt, specially and plainly charged in a commitment made by a competent court, officer of tribunal; or by virtue of an execution or other process issued upon such a judgment, decree or final order. (§§ 2016, 2032, 2034.) § 1994. When writ to issue without application. — Where any justice or judge, authorized to grant the writ, has evidence, in a judicial proceeding before him, that any person is illegally imprisoned or restrained in his liberty within the State, he must issue a writ of habeas corpus for the relief of that person, although no application there for has been made. (§ 2025.) § 1995. Application for writ; how and to whom made.-Application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made either by the person for whose relief it is intended, or some other person in his behalf, to either of the following courts or officers: 1. Any justice of the Supreme Court within the State. 2. A Special Term of the Supreme Court held within the judicial district where the prisoner is detained. 3. An officer authorized to perform the duties of a justice of the Supreme Court, at chambers, being or residing within the city or county where the prisoner is detained; or, in case there is no such officer within such city or county capable of acting, or in case those who are capable of acting have refused to grant the writ, then, upon proof being made of such facts to an officer authorized to perform those duties who resides in an adjoining county. ($S 2017-2018.) § 1997. When writ to be granted, and when returnable. A court or judge authorized to grant the writ of habeas corpus must grant it without delay whenever a proper petition therefor is presented, and the issuing of the writ is not prohibited by the provisions of this article. It may be issued and served on Sunday, but cannot be made returnable on that day. (§ 2020, except the forfeiture, which is omitted; § 2015 in part.) § 1998. Contents of writ.— The writ shall direct the person imprisoned or confined to be brought before the judge or justice of the court granting it, or when granted by a justice or at a term outside the county where the person is imprisoned or confined, in his discretion, before any judge, justice or court in the county of such imprisonment who might have granted the writ, either forthwith or at a time fixed therein to abide the order or direction of the judge, justice or court, as the case may be. (§§ 1998, 2021, 2023.) § 1999. Mode of service; fees and undertaking.The writ must be personally served, in the same manner as a summons issued out of the Supreme Court, except in the case prescribed in the next section. If the prisoner is in the custody of an officer, the fees allowed by law must be tendered him, and also an undertaking, with at least one surety, in a sum specified therein, to the effect that the surety will pay all charges of carrying back the prisoner, if he shall be remanded, and that the prisoner will not escape from custody until returned to the jail or prison from which he was taken. If the prisoner is detained for a sum of money, the undertaking must be for at least twice that sum. If not, it must be one thousand dollars. In case the writ is directed to one not an officer, the applicant may, in the discretion of the judge or court, be required to pay the charges of bringing up the prisoner. In such case the fees, not exceeding those allowed by the writ. There provisions are not applicable where § 1996. Contents of petition.-The petition must be verified by the oath of the petitioner, to the effect that he believes it to be true, and must state, in substance: (1) That the person in whose behalf the writ is applied for is imprisoned or restrained in his liberty; the place where, unless it is unknown, and the officer or person by whom he is so imprisoned or restrained, naming both parties, if their names are known, and describing either party, whose name is unknown. (2) That he has not been committed, and is not detained by virtue of any judg-law to a sheriff for similar service must be fixed in ment, decree, final order or process. (3) The cause or pretense of the imprisonment or restraint, according to the best knowledge and belief of the petitioner. (4) If the imprisonment or restraint is by virtue of a mandate, a copy thereof must be aunexed to the petition, unless the petitioner avers, either that by reason of the removal or concealment of the prisoner before the application, a demand of such a copy should not be made; or that such a demand was made, and the legal fees for the copy were tendered to the officer or other person having the prisoner in his custody, and that the copy was refused. (5) If the imprisonment is alleged to be illegal, the petition must state in what the alleged illegality consists. (§ 2019.) § 2000. Mode of service other than personal.—If the person to whom the writ is directed cannot be found, with due diligence, it may be served by leaving it at the jail or other place in which the prisoner is confined, with any under officer or other person of proper age, having charge, for the time, of the prisoner, and paying or tendering to him the fees or charges for bringing up the prisoner. If the person upon whom the writ ought to be served keeps himself concealed, or refuses admittance to the persons attempting to serve it, it may be served by affixing it in a conspicuous place, on the outside, |