Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/538

 526 FEDERAL REFOBTBB. �absolute nullity, in order to sanction the interferenoe of the court, and that if the plaintiff was within a class of persons against whom assessments might be made, the court could not interfere, although the proceedings were even so irregular or erroneous. �In U. S. y. Pacific R. R. 4 Dill. 69, in 1877, in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Missouri, Mr. Justice Miller says : �"We have, even without the aid of an act of congress, refused to grant an injunction to stay the collection of taxes under any circumstances, and this upon the broad ground applicable to this case, that the taxes of the government are essential to the support and existence of the government; and vre have always refused to permit any interference with their Collection by injunction. The principje involved Is this: that by setting up other debts and cross- actions and counter-claims against the government it would in effect be plac- ing the existence of the government at the mercy of any person who chose to set up his right in this way, and thus hinder the collection of taxes. Since that decision was originally made the statutes passed by congress go very strongly in that direction. Congress bas passed a statute expressly f orbidding the granting of an injunction for that purpose. It has passed a statute for the correction of errors of the assessing and collecting officers of the govern- ment, vrhich the supreme court has said, in two or three cases, is a complete and perfect system. If the tax is unjustly assessed, or supposed to be unjustly assessed, the remedy allowedis an appeal to the commissionerof internai rev- enue. If he decides against the party, or fails to decide within six montlis, the party injured can pay his taxes and go into court and sue for this amount, and recover it back if he is wrongf ully assessed, the court being unprejudiced by any action of the commissioner. The statute says he may bring his suit to recover it back, and he will get it back if the court so decides. The time for bringing such a suit is limited, so as to have no delay in settling the inatter. It must be within 12 months — 6 months after the commissioner has de- cided, and 12 months after the appeal has been taken. And we have said over and over again, in our courts, that that was a complete and exclusive System of correctional justice in regard to the collection of taxes unjustly assessed ; that it was the only System ; and by that ruling we abide. There can be no such thing as obstructing and objecting to the payment as in the case of adjusting the accounts of individuals." �In Alkan v. Bean, 23 Int. Eev. Eec. 361, in 1877, in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Wisconsin, a bill ■was filed against a collector of United States internai revenue to restrain the collection of a taxwhich had been assessed against a dis- tiller from whom it was alleged the plaintiff had bought the distillery promises without notice of any claim by the government on the prem- ises for taxes unpaid by the vendor. It was also alleged that the assessment was irregular and void. The inhibitory statute was set ��� �