For the collection of taxes, as well as in the appraisement of property for taxation, summary modes of procedure may be had, the justification being that without such means no government could maintain itself.91

91 The leading case is Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Improvement Co., 18 How. 272; 15 L. ed. 372. In this case the account of a collector of customs having been audited by the First Auditor of the Treasury Department, and certified by the First Comptroller, a distress warrant for the balance found due the United States was issued by the Solicitor of the Treasury in accordance with the provisions of an act of Congress, and levied upon the lands of the collector. To the contention that this proceeding denied to the collector due process of law the court replied: "Tested by the common and statute law of England prior to the emigration of our ancestors, and by the laws of many of the States at the time of the adoption of this amendment, the proceedings authorized by the act of 1820 cannot be denied to be due process of law, when applied to the ascertainment and recovery of balances due to the government from a collector of customs, unless there exists in the Constitution some other provision which restrains Congress from authorizing such proceedings. For, though 'due process of law' generally implies and includes actor, reus, judex, regular allegations, opportunity to answer, and a trial according to some settled course of judicial proceedings (2 Inst. 47, 50; Hoke v. Henderson, 4 Dev. N. C. 15; Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill. 14ft; Van Zandt v. Waddel, 2 Yerg. 260; Bank v. Cooper, Id. 599; Jones' Heirs v. Perry, 10 Yerg, 59; Greene v. Briggs, 1 Curt. 311), yet this is net universally true. There may be, and we have seen that there are, cases, under the law of England after Magna Charta, and as it was brought to this country and acted on here, in which process, in its nature final, issues against the body, lands, and goods of certain public debtors without any such trial; and this brings us to the question whether those provisions of the Constitution which relate to the judicial power are incompatible with these proceedings. The power to collect and disburse revenue, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying that power into effect, includes all known and appropriate means of effectually collecting and disbursing that revenue, unless some such means should be forbidden in some other part of the Constitution. The power has not been exhausted by the receipt of the money by the collector. Its purpose is to raise money, and use it in payment of the debts of the government; and, whoever may have possession of the public money until it is actually disbursed, the power to use those known and appropriate means to secure its due application contimies. As we have already shown, the means provided by the act of 1820 do not differ in principle from those employed in England from remote antiquity - and in many of the States, so far as we know, without objection - for this purpose, at the time the Constitution was formed. It may be added that probably there are few governments which do or can permit their claims for public internal revenue, a complete system of corrective justice in regard to taxes imposed by the General Government, which in both branches is founded upon the idea of appeals within the executive departments. If the party aggrieved does not obtain satisfaction in this mode, there are provisions for recovering the tax after it has been paid by suit against the collecting officer. But there is no place in this system for an application to a court of justice until after the money is paid. That there might be no misunderstanding of the universality of this principle, it was expressly enacted, in 1867, that 'no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be'maintained in any court.' (Rev. Stat, § 3224.) And though this was intended to apply alone to taxes levied by the United States, it shows the sense of Congress of the evils to be feared if courts of justice could, in any case, interfere with the process of collecting the taxes on which the Government depends for its continued existence. It is a wise policy. It is founded on the simple philosophy derived from the experience of ages that the payment of taxes has to be enforced by summary and stringent means against a reluctant and often adverse sentiment; and to do this successfully, other instrumentalities and other modes of procedure are necessary than those which belong to a court of justice."