commissioners, whose duty it was to enforce the collection of the tax, and therefore it was enacted by the thirteenth section of the act of 1862 that they should be authorized to value and assess the same upon such evidence as might appear before them, and it was declared that "no mistake in the valuation of the same, or in the amount of tax thereon, should, in any manner whatever, affect the validity of the sale of the same, or of any of the proceedings preliminary thereto." The provisions respecting the mode of valuation were only directory. But if they were more, so far as relates to the admissibility of the certificate of sale, the requisition of the first section of the act was quite immaterial. That certificate was made prima facie evidence of the regularity and validity of the sale and of the title of the purchaser irrespective of any recitals it might contain, or of any evidence which might afterwards be adduced to rebut the prima facies. It was presumptive evidence of all antecedent facts essential to its validity, and hence admissible as such. The only question, then, is whether the evidence offered tended to rebut this presumption.

Assuming the evidence would have proved that the commissioners did not apportion the tax upon the lot as the same had been enumerated and valued by the State in the last assessment prior to Jan. 1, 1862, their action was at most a mere irregularity, and the evidence by itself did not prove that. The act authorized the board to assess and value lots of ground according to their own judgment, when the State records of valuation and assessments were destroyed, concealed, or lost, so as not to come into their possession. It is a fair presumption that they discharged their duty according to law. The plaintiff did not offer to show, and disclaimed any intention to show, that the State records of assessment and valuation came into the possession of the commissioners previous to their making the valuation and assessment; and in view of the history of the times, to which we cannot close our eyes, it was a reasonable presumption which the jury ought to have accepted, that the State assessments and valuations were withheld or concealed. They were, of course, in the hands of the insurrectionary State government, and hence inaccessible to the commissioners. The evidence offered had no tendency to show the contrary. As we

have seen, the act of Congress declared that no mistake in the valuation or in the amount of the taxes would in any manner affect the validity of the sale, or of any of the proceedings preliminary thereto. Besides, all possible attack upon the prima facies of the certificate was limited by the express provisions of the act, which enacted, as before stated, that it should only be affected as evidence of the regularity and validity of sale, by establishing the fact that the property was not subject to taxes, or that the taxes had been paid previous to sale, or that the property had been redeemed. This left to the owner of lands subject to the tax every substantial right. It was his duty to pay the tax when it was due. His land was charged with it by the act of Congress, not by the commissioners; and the proceeding ending in a sale was simply a mode of compelling the discharge of his duty. All his substantial rights were assured to him by the permission to show that he owed no tax, that his land was not taxable, that he had paid what was due, or that he had redeemed his land after sale. He was thus permitted to assert every thing of substance, every thing except mere irregularities.

We do not feel at liberty to disregard the plain intention of the acts of Congress. We are not unmindful of the numerous decisions of State courts which have construed away the plain meaning of statutes providing for the collection of taxes, disregarding the spirit and often the letter of the enactments, until of late years the astuteness of judicial refinement had rendered almost inoperative all legislative provisions for the sale of land for taxes. The consequence was that bidders at tax sales, if obtained at all, were mere speculators. The chances were greatly against their obtaining a title. The least error in the conduct of the sale, or in the proceedings preliminary thereto, was held to vitiate it, though the tax was clearly due and unpaid. Mr. Blackwell, in his Treatise on Tax Titles, says (p. 71), "that out of a thousand cases in court [of tax sales], not twenty have been sustained.” To meet this tendency of judicial refinement very many States have of late adopted very rigid legislation. The acts of Congress we are considering must have had it in view. Hence the stringent provisions they contain. They declare, in effect, that the certificate of

the commissioners' sale shall be evidence of compliance with the preliminary requisites of the sale, and that this evidence shall be rebutted only by proof of one or the other of three specified things. There is no possible excuse for not enforcing such statutes according to their letter and spirit. In Gwynne v. Neiswanger (18 Ohio, 400), it appeared that the statute of the State prescribed certain preliminaries to a sale of land for taxes, and directed a deed to be made to the purchaser, which should be received in all courts of the State as good evidence of title, adding, "nor shall the title conveyed by said deed to the purchaser or purchasers, his heirs, or their heirs, assignee or assignees, be invalidated or affected by any error previously made in listing, taxing, selling, or conveying said land." The court held that even if there were irregularities in the proceedings, they would not justify declaring invalid a deed which the law under which it was made enacted should not be invalidated for any error in the listing, selling, or conveying.

In Allen v. Armstrong (16 Iowa, 508), we find a construction of another State statute. It enacted that a county treasurer's deed for land sold by him for taxes should be prima facie evidence, 1st, that the property conveyed was subject to taxation; 2d, that the taxes were not paid; 3d, that the property conveyed was not redeemed; and should be conclusive evidence of the following facts: 1st, that the property had been taxed and assessed as required by law; 2d, that the taxes were levied according to law; 3d, that the property was advertised for sale in the manner and for the length of time required by law; 4th, that the property was sold as stated in the deed; 5th, that the grantee was the purchaser; 6th, that the sale was conducted as required by law; and, 7th, that all the prerequisites of the law were complied with by all the officers, from the listing and valuation of the property up to the execution of the deed, and that all things whatsoever required by law to make a good and valid sale, and to vest the title in the purchaser, were done, except in regard to the three points first above named, wherein the deed should be prima facie evidence only. This, it will be noticed, was substantially the same as the United States statute, and the court ruled that irregularities preced

ing the sale were inoperative to defeat it. The case is in many particulars instructive. See also Tharp v. Hart, 2 Sneed (Tenn.), 569.

In regard to the assignment of the plaintiff, that the court erred in refusing to admit evidence of the order of General Hunter and its revocation, as well as of the fact that Beaufort County was under martial law when the sale was made, it is sufficient to say that we cannot perceive its possible legitimate bearing upon any question really involved in the case, and the assignment has not been seriously pressed.

Nor was there error, of which the plaintiff can take advantage, in refusing evidence to prove that the advertisement and notice of the sale did not describe the property sold as it was enumerated in the last preceding valuation. What we have heretofore said is a sufficient answer to this objection.

One other assignment only remains. It is that the acts of Congress were unconstitutional, because the amount of the direct taxes apportioned to the State of South Carolina was increased by the addition thereto of a penalty of fifty per cent, and therefore was not in proportion to the census or enumeration directed to be taken by the second section of the first article of the Constitution.

The assignment rests upon a mistaken construction of the acts of Congress. It is true that direct taxes must be apportioned among the several States according to the population. The acts cf Aug. 5, 1861, June 7, 1862, and Feb. 6, 1863, did so apportion the tax. The fifty per cent penalty was no part of it. The act of Congress of 1861, which levied the tax, provided for no penalty, except for failure to pay it when it was due; and the penalty charged by the acts of 1862 and 1863 was also for default of voluntary payment in due time. A careful reading of the acts makes this very plain. Throughout, a distinction is made between the tax and the added penalty. It is recognized in the first section of the act of 1862, in the second, and in the third, as well as elsewhere. By the third section the owner of the lots or parcels of land was allowed to pay the tax charged thereon (not the tax and penuity), and take a certificate of payment, by virtue whereof the

lands would be discharged. It cannot, therefore, be maintained that the tax was in conflict with the Constitution.

We have thus considered all the questions presented by the record, and we discover no error.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD dissented.

Judgment affirmed.

HOOPER v. ROBINSON.

1. A policy upon a cargo in the name of A., on account of whom it may con cera," or with other equivalent terms, will inure to the interest of the party for whom it was intended by A., provided he at the time of effecting the insurance had the requisite authority from such party, or the latter subsequently adopted it.

2. No proof is necessary that the assured had an insurable interest at that time. It is sufficient if such interest subsisted during the risk and when the loss occurred.

3. A policy "lost or not lost" is a valid stipulation for indemnity against past as well as future losses. A contingent interest may be the subject of such a policy.

4. In an action against A. to recover the amount paid to him by the underwriters, who allege that neither he nor his principal had an insurable interest in such cargo, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to show that fact.

A. having received the money as agent, and promptly paid it over to his principal, without notice of any adverse claim, or reason to suspect it, the plaintiffs, having been guilty of laches, must look to that principal.

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. The British steamer "Carolina" came to Baltimore, consigned to James Hooper & Co. They were also her agents while she remained in that port. The plaintiff in error was a member of the firm. Having taken on board her return cargo, the steamer proceeded on her homeward voyage. While in the Chesapeake Bay she was injured by a collision with another vessel, and put back to Baltimore for repairs. She was repaired, and Hooper & Co. paid all the bills and made other disbursements for her. McGarr, the captain, drew on Good