United States v. Singer

Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. Two questions are presented by the counsel of the government for our consideration in this case. One relates to the construction which should be given to the twentieth section of the act of July 20th, 1868, imposing taxes on distilled spirits; and the other relates to the liability of the defendants on the bond in suit to reimburse the United States the amount paid by them to the storekeeper placed in charge of the warehouse of the distillers. Upon the construction which should be given to the twentieth section of the act of July, 1868, there appears to have been someconflictof opinion among different Circuit judges. The real or supposed hardship in particular cases of imposing a tax upon an amount of spirits equal to eighty per cent, of the producing capacity of the distillery, where a less quantity has been in fact manufactured by the distiller, has undoubtedly had much to do in inducing a construction leading to a different result. But the hardship of the operation of particular provisions of a statute has properly no place for consideration where the language is unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear. And reading the section in question by itself there does not appear to us to be any ambiguity in its language, or any doubt as to its meaning. Its meaning is that in no case shall the distiller be assessed for a less amount of spirits than eighty per cent, of the producing capacity of his distillery, and if the spirits actually produced by him exceed this eighty per cent., he shall also be assessed upon the excess. The other sections of the act, instead of conflicting, agree with this construction. There are running through the act two classes of provisions, one of which looks to the ascertainment of the quantity of spirits distilled, and the other to *119 the ascertainment of the producing capacity of the distillery. Thus the first section has reference to the spirits actually produced, aud provides for the tax thereon. The fifteenth section compels every distiller to provide a warehouse, to be situated on aud constitute part of his distillery premises, to be used only for the storage of distilled spirits of his own manufacture. The nineteenth section requires the distiller to make daily entries in books, kept for that purpose, of the grain and other materials used in the manufacture of spirits, and to render a sworn account three times each month of the number of gallons produced by him and placed in his warehouse. And the twentieth section makes it the duty of the assessor to inquire into aud determine whether the distiller has accounted in his returns for all the spirits produced by him. These provisions are intended to secure the ascertainment of the quantity actually manufactured by the distiller. On the other hand, the ninth section provides “ that every distiller, or person intending to engage in the business of distilling, shall previous to the approval of his bond cause to be made, under the direction of the assessor of the district, an accurate plan and description, in. triplicate, of the distillery aud distilling apparatus, distinctly showing the location of every still, boiler, doubler, worm-tub, and receiving cistern, the course aud construction of all fixed pipes used, or to be used in the distillery, and of every branch thereof, and of every cock or joint thereof, and of every valve therein, together with every place, vessel, tub, or utensil, from and to which any such pipe shall lead, or with which it communicates;” and also showing “the number aud location, and cubic contents of every still, mash tub, and fermenting tub, together with the cubic contents of every receiving cistern, and the color of each fixed pipe.”. One copy of the plan and description is required to be kept displayed in some conspicuous place in the distillery, one is to be kept by the assessor, and one to be transmitted to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Their accuracy is to be verified by the assessor, the draughtsman, and distiller, and no alteration in the distillery can afterwards be made with *120 out the consent of the assessor, and any alteration made must be shown ou the original, or by a supplemental plan and description, which is to be preserved in the same manner as the original. The tenth section requires a survey to be made by the assessor, with the aid of a skilful and competent person to be designated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, of every distillery used, and its true producing capacity estimated and determined, and reports of the same to be made in triplicate, one to be furnished to the distiller, one to be retained by the assessor, and one to be transmitted to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. These several provisions are intended to secure information as to the producing capacity of the distillery; and then we have the concluding clause of the section under consideration, that in no case shall the quantity returned by the distiller, with the quantity assessed as deficit, be less than eighty per cent, of such capacity. The system thus adopted was designed to prevent the secret production of spirits and consequent evasion of the government tax. And it seems well suited to accomplish this purpose; it at least reduces- the limits within which fraud can be practiced to twenty per cent, of the capacity of the distillery. In view of the enormous frauds previously practiced upon the government in rendering accounts, this system cannot be justly charged with unnecessary harshness. Every one is advised in advance of the amount he will be required to pay if he enters into the business of distilling spirits, and every distiller must know the producing capacity of his distillery. If he fail under these circumstances to produce the amount for which by the law he will iii any event be taxed if he undertake to distil at all, he is not entitled to much consideration. It is suggested that as the distiller is required to make a retara of the spirits actually manufactured by him under oath, the provision for a return of an amount equal to eighty per cent, of the producing capacity of the distillery cannot be complied with where a less amount has beeu produced. But we do not perceive any difficulty in this respect, or any *121 difficulty in giving effect to both provisions. The distiller should, as required, return under oath the true amount produced by him, and where this is less than the eighty per cent, he should add the difference, so as to obtain the amount for which the assessment is to be made. He can state in his return both the actual product of his distillery and the deficiency between that and the assessable amount. The law is not in our judgment subject to any constitutional objection. The tax imposed upon the distiller is in the nature of an excise, and the only limitation upon the power of Congress in the imposition of taxes of this character is that they shall be “uniform throughout the United States.” The tax here is uniform in its operation ; that is, it is assessed equally upon all manufacturers of spirits wherever they are. The law does not establish one rule for one distiller and a different rule for another, but the same rule for all alike. It follows from these views that .the court below erred in overruling the demurrer of the plaintiffs to the third amended plea of the defendants, which raised the question we have considered as to the proper construction, of the twentieth section of the act of July, 1868. Upon the second question presented, which relates to the liability of the defendants on the bond in suit to reimburse the United States the amount paid by them to the .storekeeper placed in charge of the warehouse of the distillers, our judgment is with the defendants. The bond in suit was executed in January, 1869. The fifteenth section of the act of Congress of July 20th, 1868, then in force, required every distiller to provide a warehouse for the storage of spirits manufactured by him, and declared that such warehouse, when approved by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on report of the collector, should be a bonded warehouse of the United States, and should be under the direction and control of the collector of the district, and in charge of the internal revenue storekeeper assigned thereto by the commissioner. The fifty-second section of the same act enacted *122 that the compensation of these storekeepers should bo determined by the commissioner and be paid by the United States. The distillers in this ease provided the warehouse directed, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assigned a storekeeper to take charge of it at a compensation of five dollars a day, and he remained in charge of the warehouse from the 4th to the 25th of March, 1869, inclusive, for which service he was entitled to one hundred and ten dollars, and was paid that amount by the United States. Subsequently to this, and on the 29th of March, 1869, Congress passed a joint resolution supplying omissions in the enrolment of certain appropriation acts, to which was annexed a proviso that, after the passage of the resolution, the proprietors of all internal revenue bonded warehouses should “reimburse to the United States the expenses and salary of all storekeepers or other officers in charge of such warehouses,” and that the same should be paid into the treasury and accounted for like other public moneys. The question is whether the official bond of the distillers and their sureties in this case binds them to make reimbursement of this money expended by the United States before the joint resolution was passed. We are clear that this question must be answered in the negative and on two grounds: 1st, because the joint resolution only contemplates, in our judgment, the reimbursement of expenses and salary paid after its passage; and, 2d, because if that be not the true construction of the resolution, the reimbursement to the United States of moneys paid by them to their own officers or agents, in pursuance of a law in existence when the bond was executed, is not a duty so connected with, or naturally "belonging to, the business of a distiller as to be within the reasonable contemplation of the parties to the bond at the time of its execution. The official bond of parties undoubtedly covers not merely duties imposed by existing law, but duties belonging to, and naturally connected with their office or business imposed by subsequent law. But the new duties should have some relation to or connection with such office or business, and not be disconnected from and foreign to *123 both. It would be extending the liabilities of obligors on such bonds beyond principle and precedent to hold them responsible for the reimbursement of moneys paid by government to its own officers or agents, because, subsequent to their payment, government declares that such reimbursement shall be made,. This case is distinguished from that of United States v. Powell, decided at the last term. * There the moneys were expended by the United States, and one of the bonds in suit was executed, after the passage of the joint resolution. It follows from these views that the ruling of the court below in sustaining the demurrer of the defendants to the second count of the declaration was correct. Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, with leave to the defendants to plead anew to the first count of the declaration. Note. — At the same time, and in a similar way with the preceding case, was adjudged the case of United States v. Van Buskirlc, in which the same points arose as in United States v. Singer. Footnotes [*] 14 Wallace, ’493.