Chinese Tax Cases

• Decision Date: 22 November 1882
• Citation: 14 F. 338
• Parties: THE CHINESE TAX CASES. v. ROSS and another. ON YUEN HAI CO. and others
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

14 F. 338

THE CHINESE TAX CASES.

ON YUEN HAI CO. and others v. ROSS and another.

United States Circuit Court, D. Oregon.

November 22, 1882

William H. Effinger, for plaintiffs.

George W. Yocum, for defendants.

DEADY D.J.

This suit is brought by a Chinese firm of this city called On Yuen Hai Company, composed of four persons whose names are given in the bill, and 16 other such firms, composed of one or more persons each, to restrain the defendant Sears, as sheriff of Multnomah county, and the defendant Ross, as supervisor of road district No. 8 therein, from collecting from them or the Oregon Railway & Navigation Company, by seizure and sale of their goods and chattels, or otherwise, the sum of four dollars per head, claimed by said defendants to be due from each of 1,449 Chinese laborers in the employ of the plaintiffs as laborers upon the railway of the said Oregon Railway & Navigation Company.

Upon the filing of the bill, by consent of the parties, a preliminary injunction was allowed, and afterwards the cause was heard upon the bill and answer.

The bill is drawn upon the theory that these Chinese laborers were not only not liable to do road work in district No. 8 but that the proceeding taken by the defendants to enforce the payment of a money tax as a substitute therefor is wholly unauthorized by law.

By the laws of this state it is provided that each road supervisor shall, on or before April 15th of each year, 'make out in alphabetical order, a list of all persons liable to perform labor on the public roads residing within his district,' and assess two days' work on such roads to each of such persons. Females, persons under 21 and over 50 years of age, and those who are a public charge or too infirm to labor, are exempt from road work; and any one may pay two dollars to the supervisor in lieu of any such day's work.

If any person subject to road labor as aforesaid shall, after three days' notice from the supervisor, 'personally or by writing left at his usual place of abode,' neglect or refuse to perform said labor, 'such delinquent shall thereby become liable to the supervisor for the amount of this road tax in money; and such supervisor shall proceed at once to collect the same by levy and sale' of his property.

If sufficient property of the delinquent out of which to make the tax cannot be found, the supervisor must proceed against him by action, and the judgment therein may be enforced as for a fine in a criminal action. Or. Laws, pp. 726, 728 Secs. 21, 22, 24, 27.

Such was the statute until October 24, 1866, when 'An act to facilitate the collection of taxes in certain cases' was passed, which provided as follows:

Section 1. 'Any officers charged with the collection of any tax, who cannot find personal property out of which to make the same, shall demand such tax from any person who may be indebted to such tax-payer, and shall collect the same out of his personal estate, unless he shall take and subscribe an oath that he is not indebted to such tax-payer, which oath may be administered by such collector.'

Section 2 authorizes the assessor to collect the poll tax at the time of assessing the same, and in default of such payment he is required to give the sheriff a list of such taxes, who must collect the same by the levy and sale of property, or 'in the mode directed in the preceding section.'

Section 3 provides: 'If any person liable to perform labor on the public roads * * * shall fail to do so when warned, * * * the supervisor shall immediately give to the sheriff a statement of such delinquent road work, * * * showing the amount that will discharge the same in money, and the sheriff shall immediately collect the same in the manner aforesaid, and pay it to such supervisor. ' This section also provides that 'the sheriff shall receive for his services,' under said sections 2 and 3, 'a sum equal to one-fourth part of the delinquent tax, besides his lawful fees, to be paid by the delinquent or collected with the tax. ' Or. Laws, p. 769, 770, Secs. 101-103.

Upon this hearing the answer is taken for true; and, reading it in the light of the circumstances and the uncontroverted allegations of the bill, the material facts of the case appear to be as follows:

About February, 1882, these Chinese laborers came to Oregon, and were employed upon the railway then being constructed by the Oregon Railway & Navigation Company between Portland and eastern Oregon via the Dalles, under contract with the plaintiffs to that effect, and that they have no fixed residence in the country and expect to return to China at some future day; that road district No. 8 is a political division of Multnomah county, including, as appears from the public records thereof, all that portion of the county which lies to the east of the Sandy river, the west line of the same being about 18 miles east of Portland; that on April 1, 1882, said Chinese laborers were in said district at work upon the construction of said railway, the line of which runs through said district on the south bank of the Columbia river for the distance of about 20 miles, where they remained not to exceed four months thereafter, passing through and beyond the district as the road-bed was completed, without any purpose or occasion to remain longer therein, or to ever return thereto; that while said laborers were in said district, and before April 15th, the defendant Ross, as supervisor of said road district, listed them as persons residing therein, and liable to perform work on the public roads thereof, as Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., of the company by which they were employed, and did assess against each of them two days' work to be performed upon the roads in said district; that thereafter, and while said Chinese were still in said district, said supervisor did duly notify them by the description aforesaid to work on the roads of said district, which they neglected and refused to do, and being unable to find any property of said Chinese out of which to make said delinquent tax, said supervisor, on July 8th, delivered to the defendant Sears, as sheriff, a statement in writing thereof, with the sum of money which would discharge the same, to-wit, four dollars per head, 'not including costs and expenses;' and that thereafter, on August 12th, said sheriff did 'garnish' each of the plaintiffs, and the Oregon Railway & Navigation Company, by delivering to each of them true copies of said statement, and 'a notice of garnishment,' to the effect 'that by virtue of a warrant for the collection of road tax issued' by said supervisor to said sheriff, 'all debts, property, moneys, rights, dues, or credits of any value' in their hands or under their control, 'and especially a certain sum of six dollars belonging to each of the Chinamen' in their employ, designated and numbered as aforesaid, 'is hereby levied upon and garnished, and you are hereby required to furnish forthwith a written statement of all such property or credits.'

The objection to the proceeding pursued by the defendants for the collection of this tax, that a garnishee process cannot be maintained except in aid of an attachment or execution issued from a court of justice in a judicial proceeding, assumes that this is a technical garnishment, and overlooks the statute (October 24, 1866, supra) which expressly authorizes the collection of delinquent road work or tax in the contingency stated-- when it cannot be made out of the personal property of the delinquent-- by demanding and receiving the amount of the same from any debtor of the delinquent. The fact that the defendant Sears appears to have erroneously assumed that he was acting under an ordinary garnishment in an action at law does not make the proceeding such an one, or vitiate it, provided the statute governing it is substantially complied with.

The method of collecting or enforcing a tax is altogether within the discretion of the legislature, unless otherwise provided by the constitution. Cooley, Tax. 36 et seq.

Assuming, then, that this road labor was duly assessed upon these Chinese laborers, and that they neglected to work it out or pay the equivalent in money after being duly warned thereto, it became the duty of the supervisor to make and deliver to the sheriff a statement of the facts showing their delinquency in this respect, whereupon it became the duty of the sheriff to collect the amount due from each by a seizure and sale of his personal property, and, in default of that, to demand the amount from any debtor of the delinquents, including the plaintiffs. Whether these laborers were duly warned or not, upon the facts stated in the answer, is not free from doubt. But it is alleged in the answer that they were known by the numbers and designation used, and my impression is that is was sufficient.

The allegation in the supervisor's statement concerning the indebtedness of the plaintiffs and the Oregon Railway &amp Navigation Company to the delinquents, is unauthorized and superfluous. His duty is discharged when he furnishes the sheriff...