[ *383]

rumours were false and scandalous; and that their *authors should be apprehended and brought to condign punishment(g). However, its original (r) establishment was in 1643(s), and its progress was gradual; being at first laid upon those persons and commodities where it was supposed the hardship would be the least perceivable, viz., the makers and vendors of beer, ale, cider, and perry(t); and the royalists at Oxford soon followed the example of their brethren at Westminster by imposing a similar duty; both sides protesting that it should be continued no longer than to the end of the war, and then be utterly abolished(u). But the parliament at Westminster soon after imposed it on flesh, wine, tobacco, sugar, and such a multitude of other commodities, that it might fairly be denominated general: in pursuance of the plan laid down by Mr. Pym (who seems to have been the father of the excise), in his letter to sir John Hotham(x), signifying, "that they had proceeded in the excise to many particulars, and intended to go on further; but that it would be necessary to use the people to it by little and little." And afterwards, when the nation had been accustomed to it for a series of years, the succeeding champions of liberty boldly and openly declared "the impost of excise to be the most easy and indifferent levy that could be laid upon the *people "(y); and [*384] accordingly continued it during the whole usurpation. Upon king Charles's return, it having then been long established, and its produce wellknown, some part of it was given to the crown in 12 Car. II., by way of purchase (as was before observed) for the feudal tenures and other oppressive parts of the hereditary revenue. But, from its origin to a comparatively recent period, it has been extremely unpopular. It was, nevertheless, imposed on many commodities other than those before mentioned in the reigns of king William III. and succeeding princes, to support the enormous expenses occasioned by our wars on the continent.

Thus excise duties were levied on spirits, hops, malt, beer, soap, glass, salt, paper, &c., indeed on nearly every article in daily use. Now, however, many of the most objectionable of these duties have been repealed, and the excise is levied in much fewer instances, the principal part of the revenue arising therefrom being derived from malt and spirits.

V. Another considerable portion of the revenue is contributed with greater cheerfulness, as, instead of being a burden, it is for the manifest advantage of (V.) Post-office. the public. I mean the duty for the carriage of letters. (102)

(4) Com. Journ. 8 Oct. 1642.

(r) The translator and continuator of Petavins's Chronological History (Lond. 1659, fol.) informs us, that it was first moved for, 28 Mar. 1643, by Mr. Prynne. And it appears from the journals of the commons, that on that day the house resolved itself into a committee to consider of raising money, in consequence of which the excise was afterwards voted. But Mr. Prynne was not a member of parliament till 7 Nov. 1648; and published in 1654 "A protestation against the illegal, detestable, and oft condemned tax and extortion of excise

(102) The power to establish post-offices and post-roads is conferred on congress by the U. S. Const., art. 1, § 8. The statutes relating to this subject provide for a very complete system of mail transportation and communication.

The postmaster-general is but a mere agent for the United States, as to all official acts

It does not appear at what precise date the crown undertook to be the regular carrier of letters for its subjects. The crown, doubtless, at a very early period, found it necessary to the functions of sovereignty, to be able to convey, with speed and security, its own despatches from one part of the realm to another, and from and to parts beyond the seas; and for that purpose it appointed certain messengers or runners called the posts. These posts were also employed for the personal convenience of the sovereign and the individuals composing the royal court. In course of time a master of the posts was appointed, *and the first of these on record was sir Brian Tuke, who held that [*385] office in 1516. His joint successors were sir William Paget and John Mason(z), and there were successive patents granting the same office to other persons temp. Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I. The practice probably began at an early period, and afterwards grew into a regular custom of allowing private persons to avail themselves of the royal posts for transmitting their correspondence, and this practice, besides yielding perquisites to the postmaster, gave to ministers of state the power of narrowly inspecting the written correspondence of the public.

The officer hitherto mentioned as the king's postmaster, was the master of the posts within the dominions of the crown at home or beyond the seas, and to him belonged the transmission of letters both at home and abroad. In 1619

(2) Letters patent, dated Nov. 12, 1545, granted to them, during their lives and the life of the survivor, the office of master of the messengers, runners, or posts, as well within the kingdom of England as in parts beyond the seas in the king's dominions, to

gether with the fee of 667. 138. 4d. a year; but besides his fee, the master of the posts received from the crown the amount of his expenses for conveying letters, of which he rendered an account. (Report of Committee of H. of Com. on the Post Office, 1844.)

and contracts. Locke v. Postmaster-General, 3 Mason's C. C. 446. He has authority to establish post-offices, whether the commissions are more or less than $1,000. Ware v. United States, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 617. He may require and take bonds from postmasters. Postmaster-General v. Early, 12 Wheat. 136; Postmaster-General v. Rice, Gilp. 554; Attorney-General v. Reeder, 4 Wash. C. C. 678. If a postmaster unlawfully detains mail matter from the individual to whom it is addressed, it is a conversion, for which an action of trover may be maintained against him. Teal v. Felton, 12 How. (U. S.) 284; affirming S. C., 1 N. Y. (1 Comst.) 537; 3 Barb. 512. And the action will lie in the state courts. Ib. It is the duty of postmasters to deliver letters deposited for delivery at the same office. Nevius v. Bank of Lansingburgh, 10 Mich. 547; Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence, 1 Pet. 578. A civil action will lie in a state court against a postmaster for negligence, whereby a letter containing money was stolen from his office. Coleman v. Frazier, 4 Rich. (S. C.) 146; Bolan v. Williamson, 1 Brev. 181; S. C., 2 Bay. 551. And the postmaster is liable for the negligent acts of his assistant in the discharge of the duties of the office. Ib. See Teal v. Felton, supra. But see Schroyer v. Lynch, 8 Watts, 453, as to the purloining of a letter by a deputy.

A postmaster is liable for the acts of one whom he permits to have the care and custody of the mail in his office, not having been sworn according to law. Bishop v. Williamson, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 495. And a deputy postmaster is liable in an action to the party sustaining a loss by his negligence. Maxwell v. M'llvoy, 2 Bibb, 211.

The United States may sue a postmaster before a justice of the peace, if the amount claimed be within his jurisdiction. McNamee v. United States, 6 Eng. (Ark.) 148. But no action lies against a postmaster upon an unaccepted draft upon him from the post-office department in favor of the holder. Goodwin v. Hazzard, 1 Carter (Ind.), 514.

Nor will an action lie against him for refusing to give a newspaper the publishing of advertisements as to letters remaining in post-offices, as required by act of congress; because a private action will not lie to enforce a public duty, unless it is given by statute. Fosters v. McKibben, 14 Penn. St. 168; Strong v. Campbell, 11 Barb. 135.

however, a new patent office was established, called that of the postmaster of England for foreign parts out of the dominions of the crown, which gave rise to a protracted legal contest between rival claimants(a). During the reign of Charles I. the postmaster, Thomas Witherings, suggested improvements in the management of the post-office, which, at that time, instead of producing any revenue to the state, caused an annual burden to it of 34007. His plan consisted essentially of three parts- the establishment of fixed rates of postage; the substitution of horse for foot-posts, and a concession to the public generally of the use of the post-office. The plan was adopted, and Witherings was appointed postmaster, *as well for the conveyance of inland as of for[ *386] eign letters.

In 1657 a bill for the settling of the postage of England, Scotland, and Ireland, was laid by order of the Protector, before his parliament, and passed with some amendments(b).

After the Restoration, an office similar to that of postmaster was established by the 12 Car. 2, c. 35, but the rates of letters were altered, further regulations were added by various statutes, and penalties were enacted, in order to confine, except in some few cases, the carriage of letters to the public office only.

In the year 1837, the laws relating to the post-office were amended. By 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 33, the exclusive privilege of conveying letters was, with some exceptions, vested in the postmaster-general. By statute 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, the laws relating to offences against the post-office and their judicial administration were regulated. By Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 34, the rates or duties of postage on domestic and foreign letters were adjusted. And by 2 & 3 Vict. c. 52, amended and made perpetual by 3 & 4 Vict. c. 96, the rates of inland postage on letters were reduced to one uniform rate of one penny charged on every letter not exceeding half an ounce in weight, with a proportionate increase for greater weights; the parliamentary privilege of franking being also abolished (c), and official franking strictly regulated. By *the former [ *387] of these acts, parliament, moreover, pledged itself to make good any deficiency of revenue which might be occasioned by such alteration of the rates of existing duties(d), and by the latter, various provisions which have since from time to time been altered, were made regulating the postage duties on ship or foreign letters, postage stamps, money orders, the registry of letters, and the conveyance of newspapers, books, and samples.

(a) Latch. 87.

(b) The preamble of this ordinance states that the establishment of one general postoffice, besides the benefiting commerce, and facilitating the conveyance of public despatches, will be the best means "to discover and prevent many dangerous and wicked designs against the commonwealth." Scobell, 511. As to the power of opening letters now possessed by a secretary of state, see Entick V. Carrington, and Note thereto, Broom's Const. L. 615-617.

(c) The privilege of letters coming free of postage, to and from members of parliament, was claimed by the House of Commons in 1660, when the first legal settlement of the present post-office was made, but afterwards dropped upon a private assurance from the

VOL. I.-32

crown that this privilege should be allowed the members. And accordingly a warrant was constantly issued to the postmaster-general directing the allowance thereof to the extent of two ounces in weight; till at length it was expressly confirmed by statute 4 Geo. 3, c. 24; which added many new regulations, rendered necessary by the great abuses which had crept into the practice of franking: see Com. Journ. 17 Dec. 1660; Ib. 22 Dec. 1660; lb. 16 Apr. 1735; Ib. 26 Feb. 1734; Ib. 28

Mar. 1764.

(d) The revenue which at the first introduction of the penny post sunk considerably, has since risen gradually year by year. By 31 & 32 Vict. c. 110, the postmaster-general was authorised to undertake the management of electric telegraphs.

VI. Stamp duties constitute another important branch of the revenue of the crown, being imposed upon many legal(e) and mercantile documents. (103)

(VI.) Stamp duties.

They were first instituted by 5 & 6 W. & M. c. 21, and have been added to and altered by other statutes too numerous to mention. This is a tax, which, though in some instances it may be heavily felt by increasing the expense of mercantile as well as legal transactions, yet, if moderately imposed, is of service by authenticating instruments, and rendering it much more difficult than formerly to forge deeds of any standing; since, as the officers of this branch of the revenue vary their stamps frequently, a man that would forge a deed of any particular time must know and be able to counterfeit the stamp of that date also. Two other taxes may be mentioned which also

(e) By 28 & 29 Vict. c. 45, all court fees payable in the superior courts of law are to be collected by means of stamps.

(103) The statutes relating to stamps are cited in note 99. As the decisions relating to stamps are numerous, it would require more space than can here be given to notice them all, therefore some of the more important principles are all that can be stated. To render an instrument void, or inadmissible in evidence for want of a stamp, the omission to stamp must be intentional and for the purpose of evading the revenue act. Rheinstrom v. Cone, 26 Wis. 163; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 48, 51 note; Hitchcock v. Sawyer, 39 Vt. 412; Tobey v. Chipman, 13 Allen, 123; Holyoke v. Franklin Co., 97 Mass. 150; New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Quintard, 6 Abb. N. S. 128; 37 How. 29; 1 Sweeny, 89; Vorsbeck v. Roe, 50 Barb. 302; McGovern v. Hæsback, 53 Penn. St. 176; Blunt v. Bates, 40 Ala. 470; Dorris v. Grace, 25 Ark. 326; Hallock v. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 167; Campbell v. Wilcox, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 421; Hale v. Wilkinson, 21 Grat. 75; Atkins v. Plympton, 44 Vt. 21; Dailey v. Coker, 33 Tex. 815; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 279; Bumpass v. Taggart, 26 Ark. 398; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 623.

The mere omission of a stamp, in the absence of affirmative evidence that such omission was intentional, will not render the instrument void, as a fraudulent intent will not be presumed. Ib.; Green v. Holway, 101 Mass. 243; S. C., 3 Am. Rep. 339; Desmond v. Norris, 10 Allen, 250; Ritter v. Brendlinger, 58 Penn. St. (8 Smith) 68; Sawyer v. Parker, 57 Me. 39; · Cooke v. England, 27 Md. 14; Weltner v. Riggs, 3 W. Va. 445; Adams v. Dale, 29 Ind. 273 ; Blunt v. Bates, 40 Ala. 470; Dorris v. Grace, 25 Ark. 326; Vaughan v. O'Brien, 57 Barb. 491; 39 How. Pr. 515; Mitchell v. Home Ins. Co., 32 Iowa, 421; Morris v. McMorris, 44 Miss. 441; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 695. It has been decided by several of the state courts that the exclusion of unstamped instruments as evidence is a rule applicable to the United States courts alone; and that the statute does not apply to the state courts, which may admit unstamped instruments, and they will do so in case the omission to stamp was not fraudulent. Dailey v. Coker, 33 Tex. 815; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 279; People ex rel. Barbour v. Gates, 43 N. Y. (4 Hand) 40; Moore v. Moore, 47 N.Y. (2 Sick.) 467; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 466; Carpenter v. Snelling, 97 Mass. 452; Green v. Holway, 101 id. 242; S. C., 3 Am. Rep. 339; Griffin v. Ranney, 35 Conn. 239; Sporrer v. Eifler, 1 Heisk. 633; Clemens v. Conrad, 19 Mich. 170; Bowen v. Byrne, 55 Ill. 467; Hale v. Williamson, 21 Grat. 75; Atkins v. Plympton, 44 Vt. 21; Bumpass v. Taggart, 26 Ark. 398; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 623; Duffy v. Hobson, 40 Cal. 240; S. C., 6 Am. Rep. 617; Sammons v. Holloway, 21 Mich. 162; S. C., 4 Am. Rep. 465; Davis v. Richardson, 45 Miss. 499; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 732; Mitchell v. Home Ins. Co., 32 Iowa, 421.

If a stamp has been unintentionally omitted, the court will permit a stamp to be put on and canceled in open court, whenever the defect is objected to. Dailey v. Coker, 33 Tex. 815; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 279; Morris v. McMorris, 44 Miss. 441; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 695; Tobey v. Chipman, 13 Allen, 123; Dorris v. Grace, 24 Ark. 326.

It is not within the constitutional power of congress to prescribe for the states a rule for the transfer of property within them; and therefore a deed is not invalid because not duly stamped. Moore v. Moore, 47 N. Y. (2 Sick.) 467; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 466; see Sammons v. Holloway, 21 Mich. 162; 8. C., 4 Am. Rep. 465; Duffy v. Hobson, 40 Cal. 240; S. C., 6 Am. Rep. 617; Moore v. Quirk, 105 Mass. 49; S. C., 7 Am. Rep. 499.

[ *388]

come under our present head, viz., the legacy duty(f) and the succession *duty(ƒ), which are regulated in amount by the relationship of the legatee or successor to the deceased; these duties are independent of, and in addition to, the stamps on probates and letters of administration.

VII. Assessed taxes are duties assessed on individuals annually, in respect of articles used by them, the principal duties leviable under this head being those (VII) Assessed on inhabited houses(g), servants, horses, carriages, and armorial bearings. Dogs were formerly charged for under this head, but the duty on dogs has recently been removed, and a licence imposed in lieu thereof on such as keep them(h).

taxes.

(VIII.) Licences.

VIII. A licence may be defined to be a legal permission obtained on payment of money, without which a person is not allowed to do a certain act or, may be, to carry on a certain trade.(104) Licences falling under this head are very numerous, comprising inter alia those required by auctioneers, pawnbrokers, brewers, horse-dealers, publicans, and persons who shoot and deal in game, or keep dogs. Analogous to these duties are the certificates, which must be taken out by special pleaders, conveyancers, and attornies, before they are allowed to practise. Most of these duties are under the management of and collected by the commissioners of the excise (i). *Much of the revenue derivable from the sources above enumerated is applicable to the payment of the national debt, the origin and nature whereof we will next consider.

Application of taxes.

National debt.

[ *389]

In order to take a clear and comprehensive view of the nature of the national debt, it must first be premised, that after the Revolution, when our new connexions with Europe introduced a new system of foreign politics, the expenses of the nation, not only in settling the new establishment, but in maintaining long wars, as principals, on the continent for the security of the Dutch barrier, reducing the French monarchy, settling the Spanish succession, supporting the house of Austria, maintaining the liberties of the Germanic body, and other purposes, increased to an unusual degree; insomuch that it was not thought advisable to raise all the expenses of any one

(The principal legacy duty acts are 36 Geo. 3, c. 52; 45 Geo. 3, c. 28; 55 Geo. 3, c. 184; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 76; and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51. The succession duty was imposed by 16 & 17 Vict. c. 51.

No person is chargeable with both legacy duty and succession duty in respect of the same property.

(9) This duty under the name of "fumage" or "fuage" (being a tax on every chimney), was very ancient, and we read that Edward the Black Prince imposed it on his French dominions also. Spel. Gloss. Fuage. A tax of 28. on every hearth was imposed by 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 10, but removed by 1 W. & M. sess. 1, c. 10. In a few years afterwards a tax was imposed upon houses, which used to be assessed according to the number of windows

This was

(i) By stat. 31 Geo. 2, c. 22,* a tax was levied upon the salaries of all officials and upon pensions payable by the crown. varied by many statutes (inter alia), 38 Geo. 3, c. 5; 49 Geo. 3, c. 32; 6 Geo. 4, c. 9; and 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 97; and in the course of time the offices liable to it have been so much diminished in number that the revenue arising therefrom in 1867 was under 201.

(104) The statutes relating to licenses are cited in note 99.

As to the income tax and licenses, see 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14.