New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-12-09
THE COURTS.

THE COTTON TAX IN THE U. s. SUPREME COURT
WAsuIN 7ToN, Dec. 8.-William NJ. Earring
TIM painl IN error agt Rolfe s. Saunders. Error To
the Crcut Court for the OF West Tennessee Inc
plant in error was Of $50 bales OF cotton on
which the tax of three cents per pound imposed Dy le
Internal Revenue act Of July, 1885, was aid ne reiuseu
pay the tax, but hnaly ana so; uhucl p,dr t en-
corlance with the practice IN such cases unue No eu
toms laws, TO save the seizure OF inc u
This suit was brought back the sum paid the
plaintiff alleging that the tax is Violation on ose pro-
visions OF the Constitution, which pfOnlOt ne laying OIL
oapitation or othcf direct ta3rs, On nor,eJ
the census, and the laying OF duties on auces exported
the Government, and writ Of error was taken 70
this Court where MED mat nv the established law
a. derived from the Constitution. tax on lands ana
side articles Of consumption expense Indirect aud
that an yalorem tax on personal property without
reference 10 consumption, OF the character
adj yaOrem tax land, both heinC direct These con-
illusions are arrived after elaborate examination OF
the subject Of taxation aud they are submitted TO the
Court rs sufficient To the question: Levied
a. is directly upon production, without reference TO
m consumption Is ~ ITS nature direct TAX WHICH
tan be levied only by the rule of apportioument -,
On the other branch OF the argument IL ~ tat
cotton is an article produced Tor exporuon anu cosC cen
statistics quoted To show the fact From 1870 10 4e6
hreefOurths ve-siXhs of the cotton raised III the
United states was eXpored ana IN tne years IsC, $500
and 1867, the exports twOthirds to hreeIOurIhs
the year ending june So 1867. G67l3SO pounds OF
he value OF 80 exported. OF the portion
exported from the United States. 1t is asserted as
bulk of It being exported TO other states In the Union
that cotton shall not be exported without
sSS Be defeated. because the tax is not named
expectation tax the admiration once felt for its power
must be changed INTO contempt for its mpotency The
same rules OF Interpretation must be applied this
srctOn imposed upon the Federal Government, as have
States Whne the former prohibited from laying any
duty articles exported the latter are prohb-
tied from laying any mpOss or duty on imports or eA
ports. The this has no precedent in the past
of the Government and no warrant in the pro
then all the objections made in the Convention which
framed Constitution granting the taxing power
fully realized and all the arguments by winch tney
answers proved 10 be false.
The Attorney General, on behalf OF the Government
maintains that the power OF taxation Is unlimited, and
OF exercise rests wholly in the discretion OF
particulars specified I'm the COnsttuuOp-that direct
taxes shall be apportoned that all duties imposts and
shall be uniform, and no tax shall be ald on
articles exported from any State The tax objected 70
the exception Ofthe Constitution, the objection cannot
The tax here complained of is not a direct tax being
neither a land tax on slaves or other capt.
tatOn tax. The case OF Hyon agt the United States
Is Dali I'D is cited authority to the notion Of
direct tax, in which it held that direct
tax includes only such tax as IN ITS ma
ture capable Of apporonment without creating great
inequality and injustice in the application. This tax on
required in the case OF direct taxation nor t IN any
respect land, but strictly and properly duty
upon a specific commodity or article Of consumption.
Nor this tax on exports because u is lad alike on all
cotton, whether exported or not ana without regard 20
expectation. Articles exported from any state, within
the meaning Of the Constitution, are articles exported
from any state 10 foreign countries The distinction De-
the tax only attach upon the happening OF
particular event 10 wit the expectation OF the article
Oh which il lad while IN the other the tax may attach
to the article generally, and irrespective OF the
atfT asss ri sSGh a ad upon Commodity
whether grown or manufactured, while IN inc
without regard TO its future destination, its
character certainly does not become changed into tax
of the description by the fact that part or
even the whole of the article thus taxed is afterward
for export TO foreign country that would make
which il adopted by the Legislature, ana which
existed at the time OF It's collection, but upon those sub
sequenuy transporting al tue mere VIII Vi !hulN lpuas
III other words, the law imposing the tax though per
fecty valid took effect upon the article taxed
would be rendered VOID by events happening aIet us
purpose had been fully accomplished and It's operation
reference to the article had altogether ceased Tine
principle n admitted would render of little avail all
excise taxation upon articles Of commerce. state
but tax merchandise imported after II has
passed out Of the hands OF the importer; Or II
IN his hands after the packages are broken, on the
principle Congress can tax, as commodity nler-
enandse hands of It's producer, which after
ward be exported. the being laid upon the prOduc
and upon any person who may export any part
mai more Than ba the cotton produced country is
exported 10 foreign country has nothing To DO with lne
eonsttuuonaty OF the law II Congress cannot const
tutonaly lax upon the production or manufacture
OF commodity, because than one half Of 1t Is ex
ported, II cannot upon any eomnouly OF Which icss
than one half Is exported The constituuonahty OF an
act Congress depend upon the state OF trade
And Congress cannot cohsututlohaIly TAX any com.
modify, If any part OF II Is annually exported cannot
lay any excise tax upon commodities at all without pro
viding for drawback IN case OF expectation sueh a
construction nullihes the power OF Congress TO
aud is uniform throughout the United States.
The fact that cotton, any other article, Is
not produced found alike in all parts OF the country
does affect the question. There no product or man
which found in all the states in quantities eX-
Aety prOportionate the population anything else,
Of all the States. IL has been the opinion OF Congress
from The first az would appear from It's egsatOn that
personal property kept for use were excise
much taxes on personal property made Tor
sale; the upon such products as TOBACCO,
manufactured made for sale, was an excise tax.
The questions argued at great length ON both
Sides less than five different briefs having been filed.
p Phillips Albert Pike, X. W. johnson, NJ. L. Sh9rkey,
James Hughes and K. TOf for plaintiff III error J.. r.
HOaT, Attorney. General and ". A. Field, Assistant
Attorney G General, for the Government.