earlier than about six o'clock in the evening of the 29th; and that the Secretary of the Treasury himself was not informed of the signature of the Executive until nearly noon the day following. Upon this state of facts it seemed certain that the parties who had been losers and those who were threatened with loss, would obtain prompt redress. In this, however, the delegations were disappointed. The story is long, and parts of it too unpleasant to be related. Under the circumstances, it is sufficient to say, that even after relief had been promised, such was the delay in Congress, that one of the delegates from New York, and one of our own Committee felt compelled to go to Washington a second time, and again represent that in consequence of inaction, importers knew not what to do, and that the buying and selling of several kinds of foreign merchandise had nearly ceased. Finally, and on the 30th of June-two months after the commission of the wrong-justice was done in an "Act to increase duties on imports, and for other purposes." * STAMPS ON FREIGHT RECEIPTS.† In the diversity of opinion which existed as to the party bound to affix stamps to freight receipts, required * Section 20, of the Tariff Act, passed June 30, 1864. "And be it further enacted, That the joint resolution to increase temporarily the duties on imports,' approved April twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, shall not be deemed to have taken effect until after the thirtieth day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, and shall be and remain in force until and including the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and sixtyfour, and any duties which shall have been exacted and received contrary to the provisions of this section shall be refunded by the Secretary of the Treasury." + Committee,-Hamilton A. Hill, Ezra Farnsworth, Joseph M. Wightman, Joseph S. Ropes, and Albert Fearing. under the recent Internal Revenue Law, we were solicited from all quarters, in September, to consider the matter, and to recommend a rule which should operate uniformly and justly. The Commissioner and his Deputy had written several letters † which had been *We cite the 158th section of the Act passed June 30, 1864: "And be it further enacted, That any person or persons who shall make, sign, or issue, or who shall cause to be made, signed, or issued, any instrument, document, or paper, of any kind or description whatsoever, or shall accept or pay, or cause to be accepted or paid, any bill of exchange, draft, or order, or promissory note, for the payment of money, without the same being duly stamped, or having thereupon an adhesive stamp for denoting the duty chargeable thereon, with intent to evade the provisions of this Act, shall for every such offense, forfeit the sum of two hundred dollars; and such instrument, document, or paper, bill, draft, order, or note, shall be deemed invalid or of no effect, "&c. Two of these letters will serve to show the views of the Commissioner. SIR,-In answer to your letter of the 30th ult., I have to say, Receipts for the delivery of any property are chargeable with a stamp duty of two cents; and this applies to all dray receipts, and all receipts issued or received by steamboat, railroad, or express companies. Bills of lading or receipts for any goods, wares, or merchandise, to be transported from any port or place in the United States, and to be delivered at any port or place in the United States, are subject to the stamp duty of two cents. Duplicates are subject to the same stamp duties as originals. The question as to which party (the company or the shipper) shall pay the duty, depends entirely upon the circumstances attending the case. The company may refuse to issue a receipt, unless it be properly stamped by the shipper; or the shipper may refuse to forward his goods and effects without an appropriately stamped receipt issued by the company. The party furnishing the receipt must appropriately stamp and cancel it. E. L. PIERCE, Esq., Boston. Very respectfully, JOSEPH J. LEWIS, Commissioner. GENTLEMEN,-I reply to your letter of 31st ult., that a receipt sent by merchants, when they deliver goods to a ship or at a railroad depot, is entirely distinct and independent of a bill of lading. Two distinct objects are intended to be reached by these different receipts for the delivery of goods; therefore each is subject to a stamp duty; although they may be for the same goods. The party executing the receipt would be liable to a penalty for any failure to affix and cancel the stamp. Very respectfully, E. A. ROLLINS, Deputy Commissioner. published in the newspapers, and which had caused considerable discussion. Although there had been some similarity of action, growing out of the requirements of this law, on the part of the different railroads centering in Boston, we were informed, by gentlemen representing these companies, that there had been no concerted action, and that no policy on the subject of stamps had been agreed upon among them for their guidance in the future. The Boston and Worcester Railroad Company issued a circular, under date of August 26, 1864, in which it is said, "We propose to act upon the rule, that those who require stamped paper must meet the expense." In accordance with this principle, the Superintendent had announced that shippers must furnish stamps for freight receipts; the customers, paying freight bills, must furnish stamps when the sum exceeds twenty dollars; and that the Corporation would furnish stamps for receipts taken for freight delivered by it to consignees. The Eastern and the Providence Railroad Companies had been acting under regulations like these. The Lowell and the Fitchburg Railroad Companies had been requiring the consignor to furnish the stamp for the freight receipt; but they had supplied it for the receipted freight bill. We were also informed that these rules were subject to revision; and that they would be modified in any particular in which it might be shown that they did not operate fairly, or were in conflict with established commercial usage. We are obliged to dissent entirely from the position, "that those who require stamped paper must meet the expense." It is true, as the Commissioner of Internal * The circular instructions of the Erie Railway and of the Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Railroad to their agents, are based upon the same principle. Revenue observes in his letter to Mr. Bradford, of Philadelphia, that "ordinarily at law no person is bound to give a receipt for money paid." But an usage, which is almost universal, has a force hardly second to that of absolute law; and, whether the delivery be of money or of merchandise, it is almost unheard of for a payee or receiver to refuse to give a receipt. Custom, no less than courtesy, would seem to demand, that in exchange for property surrendered, an acknowledgment in writing should be given to the party making the surrender. A transaction is one-sided in which value is given on the one hand, and all consideration, even in the form of voucher, is withheld on the other. This voucher may be for the protection of only one party, and yet may be for the benefit of both. It may be useful as evidence to only one; but it may have an importance in equity in which both are interested. More than this: it might be shown, that, as a protection and as legal evidence, a receipt is as truly valuable to the party executing it as to the party to whom it is given; for, while it establishes responsibility on the one hand, it defines and limits it on the other. Because this custom of giving receipts has been found to be useful and valuable to all concerned, and to be desirable on public grounds, it has become almost universally prevalent. To argue on this subject at all, would, until recently, have been considered needless labor. The right to demand a receipt was tacitly conceded, if not absolutely recognized, by every body. The expense, under the Internal Revenue Law, which is now involved in executing this instrument, has tended to unsettle the question; but it would be difficult to show that the principle has in any way been changed upon which the usage of past years was based. Indeed, we believe the rule just now in operation among railroad companies to be exceptional; for every other payment of money or delivery of property in the community, receipts, with the stamp affixed, are almost invariably given by the receiver. This is in accordance with English law, which, for more than sixty years, has specially provided that the payee must, under penalties, give "a receipt, discharge, or acquittance, for such sum or sums of money, and also the amount of the duty thereon." On the delivery of freight for transportation, railroad companies have always given such an acknowledgment as was legal and binding. On the receipt of freight from the companies, consignees have done the same thing.* Why should this usage be changed, and either the practice of giving receipts be discontinued, or the party to whom these are given be asked to contribute towards making them complete and valid? As already intimated, the passage of the Internal Revenue Law has not affected the relative rights of parties. On the contrary, it is supposed to take individuals and corporations precisely as they were at the time when it went into effect, and to charge them accordingly. The purpose of the law is to tax trade and capital, both in the aggregate and in certain specified transactions; and its natural and proper effect is to tax parties just so far as they may be engaged in these transactions. The law was framed, in the instance now under consideration, in view of the custom of executing receipts; and it was intended that these receipts should yield a revenue to the Government. Is it not a fair inference, from this fact, that the tax for * On the back of ordinary railroad receipts will be found, in print, the rules and regulations "adopted by the several railroad corporations in regard to freight" in Boston. Among these is the following: "The Company will not hold itself liable for the safe carriage or custody of any articles of freight, unless receipted for by an authorized agent; and no agent of the company is authorized to receive or agree to transport any freight which is not thus receipted for." |