Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-04-12

OF the income tax tins st. Louis Demo
craf says: The Senate has Enally agreed
20 eontinue the income tax fOF tbs year
U70 without change. 1t is curious how
the conflict of interests in this matter has
ended % the dissatisfaction of all the ON
testants. There we're many people who
wanted the lneoms tax abolished alto
getber. and msuV others who wanted 1t
reduced changed in lie Germs, or other
wise modified, but scarcely ANYBODY
wanted il continued without Ghs1ge,
Those who opposed the tax altogether
were not strong enough 10 carry thelr
point, but acting with different interests
opposing different forms Of change, were
strong enough TO prevent any particular
alteration, aud so the tax stands as II Is,
government necessities requiring some
revenue from this source. WhetheF the
House will cOncur Is not certain, for 9
strong interest there viii ~endeavOr, 1t II
supposed, TO bring about a reduction Of
the tax withous wholly repeating 1t. But
IL viii not be strange if in the House, as
d the Senate, the dispute o wbat
OGght 10 be done, viii end Ia leaving the
IzE as it Is. That is better than total
repeal. A. Senator sherman said, the tax
is ia principle n OF the ~fairest, and
though il may well be rsduced to three
cents on the dollar, il would De injustice
10 the laborinE classes 10 repeal r. alto
ReLher while other OuorouE taxes continue
90 bear heavily upon them.
Tomorrow, the argument commences
en- the Legal Tender question, which it
was hoped, by many, was put forever at
rest by the late decision Of Judge Chase.
Others, no doubt, viii be curious to learn
Whzt new argument the Attorney Gen
.ersI. 81 whose request the question has
been EeoBened, can produce which shall
have weight enough to procure a reyer-
sal On this subject the StOcth0tdeT says
1t is not expected that the neB judges,
who are spoken of As able lawyers, viii
he found arraying themselves sgGipst the
Judgment Of the con- as recently pro
HOnnced. They will doubtless hold, as
the court has held, that 1t the date OF
the passage of the legsl-tender act, Feb
ruarv Is, 1852, the dollar of he United
states was . sic grains of gold at 900
1000 h~neness, or SOL grains Of sill
yer al 9O0-lOO6 hueness stamped
or coined at the United States
mint to authenticate its stan
lard weight and hneness; and fur
thsF that unless the provision in the Con-
.~stitation against impairIng the validity
of coutFaets is to be violated all contracts
made previous to the legal tender act
which mention dollars mean legal dollars,
Lhs value OF WbieE IN gold and silver is
repeated above.
Contracts expressing dOliaas made since
b legal-tender act may be rightly salts
ned by tender and payment in notes Of.
the GniLed States authorized by the set,
under a broad construction of the prOvi-
sion of the Consultation, Article lst, sec.
s. which empowess Congress TO coin
money and regulate the vsias thereof
though sUriet constructiOnists ~as4ntain
that this grant is confined regulating the
value OF coined money.
But beyond what Is written in the Con-
stitution, and fair construction thereon
we apprehend no new DECISION of the Su-
preme COurt-nOthing III Least that h
90 the length 70 elevate into Law the
q " 6etiOp OF MF. william
Whiting and Mr.. Edwin NJ. Stanton,
which. Ia its enormity, President Lincoln
reeoilsd from, but which be sometimes
used to stop a gap that no anecdOte al
hand would eli.