Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman is mistaken in supposing that there is no provision now for tryin questions before the tax is paid. I had one set summer a case of a bank which claimed the right to one 6th of 1%.which I a peared to defend. The court decided that the decision of the officer here was wrong, and the banks saved that much. It is only in cases under the revenue law that there is the provision to which the gentleman refers. Now, iovgdoes thematter stand? Aman is char d with fraud in his return, anyof distilled whis cy. Who tries him? The assessor. The law, as it now stands, puts the whole adjudication of the question in the power of the assessor of the district, without remedy and without. appeal. I know a case in my own district where the assessor took evidence on both sides and sur charged a distiller some 62,000 dollars. Since the death of the man who was thus charged, it turns out that 3 of the witnesses were guilty of perjury. But he had.no remedy. I asked the ComrIntRev, “What is the remedy '1" He replied, “Against the U.S.” “Must n“ot his ro city be 1st seized and sold?” Undoubte ly.” “Then when the men brings his suit for damages, if he succeeds, does he recover the full amount of the procrty seized and sold, or only the amount 0 ‘the tax ‘2” “Only the tax.” I know a case where property was seized of the value of $130,000 for a tax of $41,000, and sold for the amount of the tax. Now, not a dollar can be collected be yond the $41,000. In other words, a fraud is charged, the assessment is mode to any amount that the assessor chooses, it is decided' by him without appeal, and the only remedy of the party is to sue the nicer after the property is taken from him arid sold. Now, no gentleman can deny that that is exactly the condition of the law as it now stands everywhere. I have taken some pains to examine this subject, und I find nothing but what. I have stated. I say it is an outrage upon the rights of the people of this country, fiir it is taking from them their property without trial byjury. The revision which the House put in the bill, an which it is proposed to strike out, provided that hail should be given to double the amount, not only of what should be found against him, but for all the costs that might be incurred; and only in that caseshould the proceedings be suspended. In my judgment, to leave the law as it is now would be one of the greatest outrages ever committed upon a civilized people. I cannot believe that the people of this country will endure such legisation as that. If it. be in orderI would move that the report of the committee of conferenee be rejected. 3