Mr. WRIGHT. I have a word to say on that amendment. The proceeding under this section is similar in all respects to proceedings in rem in what we term cases of attachment, and I cannot conceive that this House will, upon a little reflection, undertake in this way to adopt a proposition of this kind. which I deem unfiiir and unjust to those whom I may term defendants in such cases. There is a provision in the law by which an assessor may advise, and his advice seems to have the authority of law. It is well known that in all cases of proceedings by attachment, and in fact in all other cases, it is necessary for the court to have jurisdiction of the person and of the subject matter; and in proceedings in rem it is necessary for the court to have jurisdiction over the property as well. But in no case, as I understand the law, in any State of this Union, can any mans property be taken, advertised, and sold upon the mere ipse dixit of an assessor or asst assessor or collector. In all cases of attachment the defendant, by coming in and giving up all, may have a right of trial by jury. this right is denied to him if this section is to be adopted. Iappeal to gentlemen if I am not correct in my understanding of it. There can be no trial by jury. no opportunity for the defendant to appear before the court, because the notice is not to be given to him, but to his bondsman. Can that be called justice? I desire to have a provision inserted in this section that when notice is given to the bonds men only, who are not owners of the property, the court fails of its jurisdiction. We are not doing justice to these men by undertaking to declare that that which according to law does not give them jurisdiction shall authorize these officers to proceed and divest a man of his prep erty without the intervention of the court or without authority of law. I am willing to o for any proceeding that will secure to the U.S. Government whatever amount may be due to it, but justice demands, inasmuch its there may be mistakes on the part of assessors and collectors, that notice should be given to the parties in interest, and that they shall be allowed to go before a court. If a question of fact is made, a party has in ordinary proceedings in a court O justice the right of a trial by jury. If it is aquestion of law he can go before a court and have justice done him equally well. I trust the chairman of the committee will look at this matter in the light I have presented it, and with his known intelligence wi i suggest abetter section than the one that is new under consideration.