
    THE UNITED STATES v. EDWARD L. JORDAN.
    (19 C. Cls. R., 108; 113 U. S. R., 418.)
    / On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    Citizens of Tennessee become liable for two income taxes of equal amount— one the general, the other the special, war income tax; the first payable June 30, the second October 1, 1864. After a number of persons have paid both taxes, the Secretary of the Treasury issues a circular exempting persons in Tennessee iroru tho payment of the first. Congress subsequently pass the Act 29th July, 1882, refunding to these persons, by name, certain amounts, equal to the total of both taxes, but reciting that they are for taxes collected contrary to the Secretary’s circular. The Treasury pays only so much as was exempted by the circular.
    The court below decides—
    (1.) Congress, by the Aet 29th July, 1882 (22 Stat. L., p. 723, ch. 359), determined not only what particular citizens of Tennessee should have relief for income taxes assessed and paid during the war, but also the exact amount which should be paid to each one of them.
    (2.) It would bo an unwarrantable assumption of power to review the facts and reasons which Congress gives in tho numerous acts passed for the relief of persons, and to deprive such persons of moneys appropriated for them.
    (3.) A mistake of fact upon which the action of Congress is predicated does not control the positive enactment founded upon it.
    
      (4.) Recitals abound in special acts for the relief of individuals, and neither the executive officers nor the judiciary can require facts recited to be proved before the parties can obtain the money granted to them.
    (5.) The phrase, “ The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay,” &e., is a common formula in special and private acts, and in the absence of words implying discretionary power it gives none..
   The judgment of the court below is affirmed, on the ground that under the act of Congress of July 29th, 1882 (22 Stat., 723, eh. 359), providing for the refunding to the persons therein named of the amount of taxes assessed upon and collected from them contrary to the provisions of the regulations therein mentioned, “that is to say, to” each of such persons the sum set opposite his name, each of them is entitled to be paid the whole of that sum, and no discretion is vested in the Secretary of the Treasury or in any court to determine whether the sum specifled was or was nor the amount of a tax assessed contrary to the provisions of such regulations.

Mr. Justice Blatoheoud delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, March 2, 1885.  