The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1870-01-15
The Constltutfonanlty OF The

Cotton Tar


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, 1t is bv
far the most Important suit that has ever
been brought before the Supreme Court
as involves the constitutionalitv Of tho fax.
levied on the cotton grown in the Southern /
States collected by the United States govern
ment. 1t appears from the Sun statement,
that an organization formed IN Memphis, +
and represented by Robertson Topp sam. /
Tate and VIM. NJ. Harrington as executive /
committee, purchased Ia this State, In the /
name of Vim. NJ. Harrington, As bales of |
cotton, which had been grown in the State |
OF Mississippi, The right to ship to L0uisi- /
ana free from taxation, was claimed by the |
purchasers This right being denied by |
Rolfe 5, Saunders the Collector Of Internal |
Revenue, located at Memphis, the tax of
three cents per pound, amounting to about
$2,064, was paid by harrington under pro-
test, and. the cotton shipped by him in the
summer of 1867 TO Messrs3 S. o. q NJ A. |
Nelson IL Co., of New Orleans. As the
object in view was to make this test suit
the eohsignees declined to sell there but
procured freight on a foreign vessel and
consigned the cotton to a Liverpool house
for sale on account of the owner Earring
ton then instituted suit against Saunders
in the District Court Of the United States
for the Western District Of Tennessee,
claiming the right to recover 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, judgement
was rendered against harrington, after the
Attorneys on each side had agreed upon a
go - IN oh
issue, to be decided by the Supreme Court,
Hence it was appealed to Washington for
final hearing. twas contended by Farring-
ton'scounsei that the tax was adirect one, and
not laid in conformity to the rules of appor-
tionment as provided in article first Of the
constitution; th 1t it was a tax without rep
resentation; that it did not come within the
rules of uniformity as prescribed by the
constitution; that if regarded IN the light
of an export tax or duty, it was prohibited
by the eighth article of the constitution; that
if placed on the footing of a special or ex
elusive tax, WITHOUT superintendent or
uniformity, there was no clause found IN
the constitution to warrant it; and finally,
that the taxing power Of the Legislative
branch of the government did not confer
the right to levy taxes ON the raw produc-
tons of the earth in ionc section of the
Union, while the productions of other sec
lions were found exempt Hence 1t was
commended by counsel for appellant, th9t 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
S6I6, GAS, $780, the wheat crop, 1921 ,796, 400;
the hay crop, 1912, 864, 670; the cotton crop,
Es2O1 ,470, 495; the oat crop; $l72, 472,970-
That of these cotton was the only production
on which tax had been collected; that OF
all this cotton except 100 bales raised IN
Southern Missouri and six bales in South
ern 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 char
acter of tax collected by the government
and which had been paid alike, South as
well as North 1t was also shown with
what fenaeity the members of the conven
ton who framed the constitution strove tt
guard the people of each State against par
tial or unequal taxation. 1t was while thu
case was under argument before the Suprem'
Court, that Senators Drake and Trumbui
Submitted their propositions to practically
subordinate the judiciary co ordinate
department of the government to Congress
and to take away from the Supreme Cour
the right to pass upon the eonstitutlonaht,
Of any law that Congress might pass. 1t ]
uielear that Drake had an object in view i
his revolutionary proposition, for he told th
Senate that there was necessity for Imme
date action or otherwise the court wOul
gspass upon four cases then pending-one c
which was this very cotton tax laval {
which struck at the acOnstitutiOnallty {
laws passed by Congress Z What effect thi
-terrorizing the Supreme Court may hav
on the final action of. the Justices, we car
not determine, but It is certain that it'll
doubt was felt as. to the hnconstitati0naIt
of this tax when-the ease was submitted
But as it involves no less than 8irfy million
of dollars extorted from the Southern pei
bic aunlawfuily, the result win be awaite
with a solicitude in some degree CONNER
surate with the great interests involved
PC If the Court shall now decide, as we came
believe it viii, that taxation without repr
sentation, apportionnent or uniformity,
lawful the Constitution will have failed
perform its functions, and the minority wi
forever be at the mercy of the majority.
s... Speaking Of Railroads and their indebte,
ness. the GAINESVILLE Chronicle Of the St
says .. % ,sauaa. m. 2 s-a
ss Only three railroads in Tennessee hay
paid their January interest-the Nashvll
and Chattanooga, Memphis and Ohio ar
Mississippi and Tennessee. The last pa
In part, leaving small balance. The Ia
Tennessee and Georgia road proposes
paw one third in coupons The Mississip
Central and Tennessee road offers coupons
the Mobile and Ohio road offers to pay S4C
600 in New Y ork, the remainder in coupon
at Nashville Nothing heard from 9th
roads. The Controller will not receive co
pons in payment Of railroad interest. Pro
beet of the payment in currency IS encou
aging. - -. u.
ga FROZEN TO DEATH.-AN,o clip the followIl
from the Shelbyvile, Tenn Commercial
aA i7+b ;net