other damage that may be done to the same, whether by persons residing thereon or others; and the said agents are hereby authorized, when waste or trespass shall be committed, to proceed against the person or persons committing the same, according to the laws in such case made and provided; and actions in the cases aforesaid shall be sustained by the agents, and the damages recovered shall be one half to the use of such agents, and the other half to be applied to the same purpose as the proceeds of rents from the land on which the damage was sustained.
Fees to agents for leases.Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That for each lease executed by the agents, they shall be entitled to receive the sum of two dollars, to be paid by the lessees respectively.
Limitation of leases.Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every lease which may be granted in virtue of this act, shall be limited to the period of the termination of the territorial form of government, in the said territory; and shall cease to have any force or effect after the first day of January next succeeding the establishment of a state government therein: Provided,Proviso. That outstanding rents may be collected, and damages for waste or trespass may be recovered in the same manner as if leases had continued in full force.
Approved, January 9, 1815.
Statute III.
[Repealed.]
Chap. XXI.—An Act to provide additional revenues for defraying the expenses of government, and maintaining the public credit, by laying a direct tax upon the United States, and to provide for assessing and collecting the same.[1]
Act of March 3, 1815, ch. 90.
Direct tax of six millions imposed.
Apportionment among the states.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That a direct tax of six millions of dollars be and is hereby annually laid upon the United States, and the same shall be and is hereby apportioned to the states respectively in the manner following:
New Hampshire.To the state of New Hampshire, one hundred and ninety-three thousand five hundred and eighty-six dollars and seventy-four cents.
Massachusetts.To the state of Massachusetts, six hundred and thirty-two thousand five hundred and forty-one dollars and ninety-six cents.
Rhode Island.To the state of Rhode Island, sixty-nine thousand four hundred and four dollars and thirty-six cents.
Connecticut.To the state of Connecticut, two hundred and thirty-six thousand three hundred and thirty-five dollars and forty-two cents.
Vermont.To the state of Vermont, one hundred and ninety-six thousand six hundred and eighty-seven dollars and forty-two cents.
New York.To the state of New York, eight hundred and sixty thousand two hundred and eighty-three dollars and twenty-four cents.
New Jersey.To the state of New Jersey, two hundred and seventeen thousand seven hundred dollars and sixty-seven cents.- ↑ Notes of the acts which have been passed relating to the assessment of lands for direct taxes. Vol. i. page 580. Decisions of the courts of the United States, on the acts of Congress laying direct taxes on lands, &c. A collector selling land for taxes, must act in conformity with the law from which his power is derived, and the purchaser is bound to inquire whether he has so acted. It is incumbent on the vendor to prove his power to sell. Stead’s Executors v. Course, 4 Cranch, 403; 2 Cond. Rep. 151. Under the act of Congress to lay and collect a direct tax, (July 14, 1798,) before the collector could sell the land of an unknown proprietor for non-payment of this tax, it was necessary that he should advertise the copy of the list of lands, &c. and the statement of the amount due for the tax and the notification to pay in sixty days, in four gazettes of the state, if there were so many. Parker v. Rule’s lessee, 9 Cranch, 64; 3 Cond. Rep. 271. In the case of a naked power not couples with an interest, every pre-requisite to the exercise of that power, should precede it. In the case of lands sold for the non-payment of taxes, the marshal’s deed is not prima facie evidence that the pre-requisites of the law have been complied with; but the party claiming under it must show positively that the law has been complied with. Williams et al. v. Peyton’s lessor, 4 Wheat. 77; 4 Cond. Rep. 395. Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119; 5 Cond. Rep. 28.
