Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/107

 UNITED STATES V. PAOIFIO BAILEOAD. 99 �that the demand may be made long after the maturity of the tax, and will create a lien which relates back and establishes itself upon "the property or rights of property of the defend- ant." The question in that case was as to the sufScienoy of the de.mand, and the precise point now under discussion did not arise; but I think I am within the spirit of that opinion when I say that the statute should not be construed as sub- jeeting property which has been conveyed to innocent pur- chasers, prior to any demand, unless this is its plain meaning. The consequences of such a ruling -would be so serions and far-reaching that I should not be willing to invoke them by any doubtful interpretation. There is no limitation as to the time within wMch the government may proceed against per- sons who failed to comply with the income and other internai tax laws. I have no doubt such persons are numerous. Many of them may be insolvent now, but may have owned property, when the taxes accrued, which has since passed through many hands, The law may well be liberaUy con- strued and rigidly enforced as against the guilty, especially where they have concealed their property or otherwise at- tempted to evade their just obligations to the government. But if, upon making demand now, at the end of 12 or 15 years from the time when the taxes were due, the govern- ment can establish a lien upon ail the property then owned by the delinquent tax payers, it would resuit that in most cases not the guilty, but the innocent, would be made to suffer. Such a doctrine would also unsettle the titles to real estate, since it would be impossible to know or to ascertain whether the owner has not, during the existence of the income tax law, suppressed the truth as to his receipts and earnings, or made a false return thereof. In my opinion the language of the statute does not require the construction contended for by counsel for the government. If congress had intended to make the statute so far-reaching as to subject property in the hands of innocent purchasers, who became owners years before any step was taken by the government to assert its lien, this intention would bave been plainly expressed. Such, however, is not the case. Let us examine the phraseology : ��� �