Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-12-31
HE OoNsrITUTIoNALrTy

II
tax case, which has been argued before
the Supreme Court of the United States, and
now awaits the decision of that tribunal
So far as the South is concerned, it is by
far the most important suit that has ever
been brought before the Supreme Court,
as it involves the constitutionaiity of the
tax levied on the cotton grown in the
| Southern States and collected by the
United States government. II appears
| from the Suns statement, that an organi-
zation formed in Memphis, and repre-
scented by Robertson Topp, Sam. Tate and
VIM. NJ. Harrington as executive com
mittee, purchased in this State, in
the name of VIM. NJ. Harrington, 14S
bales of cotton, which had been grown
in the State of Mississippi The right
to ship to Louisiana free from taxa
ton, was claimed by the purchasers. This
right being denied by Rolfe S. Saunders,
the Collector of Internal Revenue, To-
Gated at Memphis, the tax of three cents
per pound, amounting TO about $2,064,
was paid by Harrington under protest,
and the cotton shipped by him in the
summer of 1867 to Messrs. S. o. 81 r. A.
Nelson & Co., of New Orleans. As the
object in view was TO make this test
sui, the consignees declined to sell there,
but procured freight on q foreign vessel
and consigned the cotton to a Liverpool
house for sale on account of the owner.
Harrington then instituted suit against
Saunders in the District Court of the
United States for the Western District of
Tennessee, claiming the right to re-
cover and get back the money which,
as alleged, had been illegally taken
from him in the shape of tax or
duty. The government made itself a
party to the suit by defending Saunders
through its District Attorney. Judg-
ment was rendered against Harrington,
after the attorneys on each side had agreed
upon a statement of facts containing the
points at issue, TO be decided by the Su-
prcme Court. Hence il was appealed TO
Washington for final hearing. 1t was
commended by FarringtOn's counsel, that
the tax was direct one, and not laid in
conformity TO the. rules of apportionmentas
provided in article first of the constitution
that it was tax without representation
that it did not come within the rules of
uniformity as prescribed by the COnstitu-
ton; that if regarded in the light of
an export tax or duty, it was pro-
hibited by the eighth article of
the constitution; that if placed on
the footing of a special or exclusive tax,
without apportionmcnt or uniformity,
there was no clause found in the consti-
tuition to warrant it; and finally, that the
taxing power of tie legislative branch of
the government did not confer the right
to levy taxes on the raw productions of
the earth in one section of the Union,
while the productions of other sections
were found exempt Hence it was con-
tended by counsel for appellant, that the
act of Congress authorizing the collection
of such tax was unconstitutional. They
showed by the Agricultural Reports of
1867, that the corn crop of that year was
worth $61O,948, 500; the wheat crop,
1927, 100, 400; the hay crop, 1872, S64,
go; the cotton crop, S20l, 40, 400; the
oat crop, $l72,472, go. That of
these cotton the only produc-
ton on which tax had been col
lected that all of this cotton Except 100
bales raised in Southern Missouri, and six
bales in Southern Illinois,) had been
grown in the eleven cotton States of the
Union. 1t was shown that the payment
Of this cotton tax by the people of the
South had not exempted them from their
full share of every other character of tax
collected by the government, and which
had been paid alike, South as well as
North. 1t was also shown with what
tenacity the members of the convention
who framed the constitution strove 10
guard the people of each State against
partial OF unequal taxation. 1t was while
this case was under argument before the
Supreme Court, that Senators Drake
and Trumbull submitted Interpretations
10 practically subordinate the judiciary
a coordinate department of the govern,
mcnt 10 Congress, and to take away from
the Supreme Court the right to pass upon
the cOnstitutionality of any law that Con
gress might pass. 1t is .clear that Drake
had an object in view in his revolutionary
proposition, for he told the Senate that
there was necessity for immediate action,
or otherwise the court would pass upon
four cases then pcnding-one Of which
" as illlE WY Nbllbh tdA Jaw al VI
which struck at the constitutionality Of
laws passedby Congress! What effect this
terrorizing the Supreme Court may hayeon
the final action of the Justices, We. cannot
determine, but it is certain that little doubt
was felt as to the mconstitutionality of
this tax when the case was submitted. |
But as it involves no less than Sirty mil
lions Of dollars eXtorted from the South |
ern people unlawfully, the result will be
awaited with a solicitude in some degree
commensurate with the great interests in
volved. If the court shall now decide, as
we cannot believe it viii, that taxation
without representation, appOrtiOnment, or
uniformity, is lawful, the constitution |
will have failed to perform its functions,
and the minority will forever be at the |
mercy of the majority.
@--.----.--@