The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-09
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
ConstitmtionnIsty of the Cotton Tax Of 1865.

COnsiiintionnIity of the Cotton Tax Of 1866.
No. 10. Waiam N. burlington, P2aiatiT ia
EifoT, as. R0Lte s. saunders. Error to the Circuit
court for the District or West Worcestershire
plaintiff IN error the owner Of $50 bales of cot
ton on which the tax of three cents per pound i'm.
posed by the internal revenue act OF July 1860, was
laid. lie refused to pay the tax, but finally did so,
under protest, in accordance with the practice In
such cases under the customs revenue laws to save
the seizure Of the cotton; and this suit brought
to recover back the sum paid, the plaintiff alleg
ing that the tax Is a violation Of those prov.
slons Of the constitution which prohibit the
laying OF capitaton or other direct taxes, unless in
proportion to the census, and The laying of duties
on articles exported from any State The Judgment
below was Ia favor OF the government, and writ Of
error was taken 70 TINS court where 1t was now
heard. The paint1n in error maintains that by the
established law, as derived from the constitution q
TAX on lands and houses and u capitation tax are
direct. taxes on specific articles OF consumption
expense are Indirect, and that an ad valorem tax
personal property, without reference to consump-
tax on land both being direct. Tnese conclu.
sions are arrived at after an elaborate ex-
animation Of the subject OF taxation, and
to show that the tax IN question, levied
it Is directly upon production without reference to
its use or consumption is, IN Its nature, direct
tax, which can DO LEVIED only by the rule OF appor
ionment. ON the other branch OF the argument 1t
portatlon; and cotton statistics are quoted to show
the fact From 1870 10 1884 three.iourths 10 i've
siXtns OF the cotton raised In the United states
exported; and In the years 1855, 1866 and 1857 the
exports were tw0.thirds TO three-fourths. For the
year ending June 30 1867. 667, 1850 pounds the
value OF 500, S07 $40 were exported. or the por-
ton not exported Iron the United States II IL
asserted known TACT that but an insight
cant fraction Is consumed in the states
being exported TO other states in the Union. 10 Is
contended that this Is u legislative declaration that
cotton shall not be exported without paying q tax,
and that IL the constitution can be defeated because
ton once felt Tor It's power must be changed INTO
contempt for It's IInpotency TIE same rules OF IN
depreciation must be applied 10 this restriction I'M
posed upon the federal government, as have uni
states. While the former IN prohibited from LAYING
any tax or duty on articles exported, the latter are
prohibited rom laying any lmposts or duty on I'M
ports or exports. The tax in this case has
government, ana no warrant In the provisions
OF the constitution. Ii 1t can be MAIN
tanned then all the objections made In the convention
which framed the constitution granting the tax
by which they were answers proved to be false
The Attorney General, on behalf OF the government
maintains that the power OF taxation Il unlimited
and the extent OF It's exercise rests wholly Ia the dis
except III the three particulars specified In the con.
stltiOnthat direct taxes shall be apportoneu; that
that all duties lmposts and excuses shall De uniform
and no tax shall be laid on articles exported from
plainly and clearly shown to be witnln the excep-
ton Of the constitution or the objection cannot |
prevail. Every presumption Is In favor OF ts valid
ity. The tax mere complained OF Is not direct tax,
slaves or other capitation tax. The case
OF Hylton va. The United States q Dali. I'LL Ia |
cited as an authority as TO tho notion Of direct tax,
In which II was held that direct tax includes only