such as taking charge of lands which had been acquired by the United States under the direct-tax laws, &c., have been devolved upon officers of internal revenue.

In Delaware the duties of making the assessment and collection of the direct tax were imposed upon officers of internal revenue, and a special act of Congress, approved February 21, 1868, was passed in regard to that State.

Delaware is the only State in which officers of internal revenue made assessments and collections of the direct tax imposed by act of Congress approved August 5, 1861. The act of August 5, 1861, provides for an annual direct tax of $20,000,000, and apportioned the same to the different States, Territories, and the District of Columbia. This act, in section 53, provides that any State, Territory, or District may assume and pay its quota, in its own way, by and through its own officers; and that if any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia shall give notice, by the governor or other proper officer thereof, to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, on or before the second Tuesday of February next thereafter, of its intention to assume and pay, or to assess, collect, and pay into the Treasury of the United States the direct tax imposed by this act, said State, Territory, or District shall be entitled to a deduction of fifteen per centum on such portion of its quota as shall have been actually paid into the Treasury of the United States on or before the last day of June in the year to which such payment relates, and of ten per centum on such part or parts of its quota as shall have been actually paid into the Treasury of the United States on or before the last day of September in the year to which such payment relates. The same section also provides that the amount apportioned to any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia may be paid in whole or in part by the release of such State, Territory, or District to the United States of "any liquidated and determined claim of such State, Territory, or District of equal amount against the United States," and that in such release the same abatement shall be allowed as would be allowed in ease of payment of the direct tax in money.

A subsequent act, approved May 13, 1862, extends the provisions of section 53, above referred to, to war claims which may be presented on or before the 30th of July, 1862.

Section 52 of the act of August 5, 1861, provides for the collection of the direct tax, in case a State or Territory is in actual rebellion, &c., as soon as the authority of the United States therein is re-established.

Most of the States, and the District of Columbia, except the eleven insurrectionary States, assumed and paid the amounts apportioned to them. The act of August 5, 1861, provided for an annual tax of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), but Congress, by acts approved July 1, 1862, and June 30, 1864, limited it to one levy, or one year's tax.

By an act approved June 7, 1862, Congress provided for the collection of the direct tax apportioned to the insurrectionary States by and through United States directtax commissioners.

Sections 1 and 2 of that act provide that the direct tax shall be charged against each and every parcel of land in those States (not exempt by the laws of the State or of the United States), and that said tax, together with a penalty of fifty per centum, shall become a lien thereon, without any other or further proceeding whatever.

Section 3 provides that the owners of the lands may have sixty days from the date of fixing the tax within which to pay the same.

Section 4 provides that the title to each and every parcel of land upon which said tax has not been paid, as above provided, shall thereupon become forfeited to the United States, and, upon sale thereof, shall become vested in the United States or in the purchasers at such sale, in fee simple, free and discharged from all prior liens, encumbrances, right, title, and claim whatsoever.

The tax commissioners established their offices in the different counties in each of the eleven States mentioned as far as practicable, fixed the amount of tax charged against each tract or lot of land, gave public notice of the same, and of the time and 25 D 83

place for receiving it. Many of the land owners came forward and paid the tax and penalty charged against their lands, and many did not; and the tax, penalty, &c., still continue charged against the lands on which they have not been paid.

When the tax commissioners discontinued their work, the assessment books and papers were turned over to this office, and are now on file in this Department.

These books and papers indicate upon what particular tracts and lots of land the taxes have been paid, and what lands and lots were sold, which were redeemed after sale, &c.

Attention is called to the fact that the sales of lands and lots of land occurred, as above stated, in only the counties of Alexandria, Accomac, and Northampton, in Virginia; the Sea Islands, in South Carolina; Saint Augustine and Fernandina, Florida; at Memphis, in Tennessee; and at Little Rock, Arkansas; and that in most, if not in every case, the amount bid by the purchasers and received by the commissioners was in excess of the taxes, &c., due on the several tracts of land sold, and the total proceeds of the sales, less the amount expended by the commissioners under section 6, act of Congress approved March 3, 1865, were deposited by the commissioners and covered into the United States Treasury.

The act of June 7, 1862, amended by acts of Congress approved February 6, 1863, and March 3, 1865, contains provisions for redemption of the lands sold, and for the return of the purchase-money to the purchasers. Some of the original owners redeemed their lands, but a larger number did not redeem.

The time for redemption expired, and a larger part of the lands which had been sold under the direct-tax laws to individuals, or struck off for the United States, were left unredeemed.

Considerable litigation followed regarding the titles acquired under the United States direct-tax laws. The lands which had been acquired by the United States not being very strictly guarded, except in South Carolina, were taken possession of by persons claiming original rights.

Congress, by an act approved May 9, 1872, provided for the relief of direct-tax purchasers who should be evicted and turned out of possession of the lands purchased by them by the judgment of any United States court; and by an act approved June 8, 1872, provided again for the redemption of the lands which had been acquired, and were still owned by the United States, excepting therefrom "school farms,” national cemeteries, light-house sites, and military and naval reservations.

The provisions under this act for redemptions were continued from time to time by Congress until February 1, 1877. The time expired, and the lands which had been redeemed under the act of June 8, 1872, in South Carolina and Tennessee, were advertised for sale by this Department, and were sold at public sale, leaving such as were situated in Virginia and Florida unsold, and still owned by the United States.

I respectfully recommend that the lands owned by the United States in Virginia and Florida, which come within the provisions of the act of June 8, 1872, amended by acts of February 8, 1875, and August 14, 1876, be advertised and sold at public anction. I would also suggest that a recommendation be made to Congress to provide for the redemption of the "school farms" in South Carolina, and for the sale of the same in case of failure to redeem.

Under the provisions of the acts of Congress, approved June 7, 1862, as amended, and May 9, 1872, nearly one-half of the original purchase-money has already been returned to the purchasers, and this office is advised that suits are still pending in courts which involve the tax titles, and the result of which may necessitate the return of more of the purchase-money to the purchasers.

In regard to the $191,298.20 surplus money received at the sales for taxes, I would say that, in my opinion, there is no reason in law or justice why it should not be returned to the original owners of the property, from the sale of which it was received. I recommend that such an act be passed.

This office has heretofore uniformly held that there was no law under which such surplus could be refunded after it was paid into the Treasury.

In regard to the $315,677.86 received on the resale of lands in South Carolina after they had been stricken off to the United States for the taxes, I would say that, under the law, the property vested in the United States upon the sale, and therefore the original owners have no legal claim to any surplus or profit that might arise upon the resale. The payment of this money would be a mere gratuity, founded upon the equities of the case.

If a law for the payment of such surplus should be passed, in my opinion provision should be made to deduct from the amounts paid the expenses of each sale, to be fixed by determining the percentage of expenses of the whole amounts realized from such resales.

The payment of the surplus from such resales would be difficult, as the plantations were surveyed after they were stricken off to the United States, and resold in squares without regard to the original boundary lines, so that the proceeds of a single sale or square might be from lands belonging originally to different plantations and different

owners.

Again, part of the proceeds from the resales was from persons who purchased under the " Army and Navy" provision, paid one-fourth down, then abandoned the sale, and never paid the balance.

If Congress should determine to pay to the original owners or their legal representatives any surplus money arising from the original sales or the resales, the provision for such a purpose should be drawn so as to guard the Government against any liability to pay the purchase money, in any event, back to the purchasers, and at the same time guard the purchaser against any injustice to him.

In regard to the collection of the unpaid portion of the direct tax, I respectfully suggest that exacting a direct tax from one land-owner, and permitting the tax upon the land adjoining to remain unpaid, is not equitable, nor in compliance with the requirements of the law. I would therefore respectfully recommend that measures be taken, as soon as practicable, to collect the balance of that tax, in compliance with existing provisions of law, unless Congress desires a further suspension or different methods than are already provided.

The work in the eleven States where the tax has been levied upon the lands, and collected from nearly one-half of the land-owners, may be commenced where the taxcommissioners left it, and be prosecuted by internal-revenue officers, under the provisions of law already referred to in this letter, and the balance due from the other States and Territories may also be collected under existing provisions of law.

As to the expenses necessary to be incurred in making those collections, I am of the opinion that the collections may be completed for about 34 per centum of the entire amount to be collected, or, in round numbers, $112,000, which it will be necessary for Congress to provide for.

The sooner the work is commenced, especially in those States where this tax has become a lien upon the lands against which it is charged, the fewer will be the complications encountered.

I would also suggest that authority be asked from Congress to credit Nebraska and New Mexico with their quotas of the direct tax, as contemplated by the act of Congress approved July 1, 1862, sections 38 and 118, and to which reference has already been made in this report.

Respectfully,

Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.

GREEN B. RAUM,

Commissioner.

IN THE MATTER OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE PROPER ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE DISBURSEMENTS MADE BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR EXPENSES OF THE DISTRICT.-DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS' CASE.

1. The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are "disbursing officers, so far at least as that, under the law, they control, and are therefore responsible for the expenditure" they make.

2. The act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat., 102, sec. 4), requires the accounts of said Commissioners of disbursements of appropriations for expenses of the District to be settled and adjusted by the accounting officers of the Treasury Department. 3. The direction that the accounts of said Commissioners "shall be settled and adjusted by the accounting officers" of the United States, necessarily implies that the settlement and adjustment shall be in accordance with the laws, ulations, and usages by which these officers are governed and guided, so far as the same may be applicable to the case thus brought under their jurisdiction, and in the absence of suitable existing provisions, these officers should make and enforce such, as should be reasonable and necessary.

reg

4. Sections 3623 and 3678 of the Revised Statutes merely express the proper and necessary obligations of every officer disbursing public money, under and in accordance with a legislative appropriation-obligations which the courts would enforce on occasion even in the absence of such enactments. They are manifestly applicable to the accounts of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia.

5. Each civil commissioner of the District is required by statute to give bond for the faithful discharge of his duty. A failure to account for money, chargeable to a Commissioner as disbursing officer, would be a breach of the condition of his bond, and render him liable to a suit thereon by the obligee, in the usual mode of procedure upon such a cause of action.

6. The requirement of the First Comptroller that the accounts of the Commissioners shall be settled and adjusted at each change in the membership of the Board, relates to matters of administrative detail within the lawful jurisdiction of the accounting officers.

7. Section 3620 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of February 27, 1877 (19 Stat., 249), requires each disbursing officer having public money intrusted to him for disbursement, to deposit the same with the Treasurer, or some one of the assistant treasurers of the United States, and draw for the same only in favor of the persons to whom payment is made. The Secretary of the Treasury may in certain cases authorize deposits elsewhere.

To the President:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, June 29, 1883.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a communication addressed to you by S. L. Phelps, Josiah Dent, and William J.

Twining (by John A. Baker, his administrator), late Commissioners of the District of Columbia, appealing to you for protection from the effects of alleged misconstruction of laws of Congress by the First Comptroller of the Treasury on certain stated points, and as to which you require my advice and opinion.

On my representation to the petitioners that a more, specific statement of the official action of the First Comptroller was desirable, this communication was supplemented by another, to which were annexed three letters, addressed by the First Comptroller to ex-Commissioner Phelps, dated respectively February 26, February 28, and March 6, 1883, extracts from which were quoted, as is understood, in order to point out the particular misconstruction of the laws by the First Comptroller, of which the petitioners complain; also a letter dated December 19, 1879, addressed on behalf of the Board by its president, J. Dent, to First Comptroller A. G. Porter, in answer to a communication from him as to its duties, and setting forth, its views of the matter in controversy, and a letter dated April 9, 1883, of the Acting First Comptroller, addressed to Commissioner Thomas P. Morgan, transmitting a statement of differences in settlement of a certain account of the Commissioners. I do not deem it necessary to recite these extracts, or to refer in detail to the matters contained in the several communications and exhibits. It will suffice to state briefly the essential question at issue which turns on the effect of the following clause of the fourth section of the act approved June 11, 1878, entitled "An act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia" (20 St., 102), namely: "All taxes collected shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States, and the same, as well as the appropriations to be made by Congress as aforesaid, shall be disbursed for the expenses of said District on itemized vouchers, which shall have been audited and approved by the auditor of the District of Columbia, certified by said Commissioners or a majority of them; and the accounts of said Commissioners, and the tax collectors and all other officers required to account shall be settled and adjusted by the accounting officers of the Treasury Department or the United States."

Since the enactment of this provision, it has been construed in the Treasury Department, as requiring the Commissioners to render accounts of all their disbursements of the funds mentioned in the said section of the act, to the accounting officers there for settlement and adjustment, in the same manner as the accounts of disbursing officers are there settled and adjusted.

It is not perfectly clear from the petitioners' statement whether they deny the right to exact any accounting from them, or whether they merely claim to be exempt from the operation of statutes relating to disbursing officers of the United States and their accounts.

The former proposition could not well be maintained in view of the