Vicksburg weekly herald. (Vicksburg, Miss.) 1868-1883, 1870-01-08

Va N5l' NAAhAhl lAlhH III
Europe or the North
Index.
From the y o. Commercial Bulletin,
THE CUTTUN TAN.
IMPORTANT SUIT INvoLISG ITS con.
sTlTCTIloNALITY.
SO far as the South is concern.
ed, by far the most important suit
that has ever been submitted to
the Supreme Court of the United
States, or perhaps ever will he
again, has lately been argued and
is now awaiting u decision. We
refer to the case OF Harrington VS..
Saunders, which involves the con
stitutionality OF the cotton tax.
The following is 4 brief history Of
the suit
An organizat, on formed at
Memphis, Tenn. represented by
Robertson Topp, Samuel Tate
and VIM. NJ. Harrington, eXecu
tive committee, purchased in the
State Of Tennessee, in the name
Of VIM. NJ. Harrington, one hun.
drcd and forty-cight bales of cot
ton, which had been made in the
State Of Mississippi. The right
to ship the same to another State,
to wit Louisiana, free from taxa.
ton, was claimed by the purchas.
or. This right being denied by
Rolfe S. Saunders, the Collector
of Internal Revenue located at
Memphis, the tax of three cents
per pound, amounting to about
two thousand and sixty. four
dollars, was paid by Far
rington under protest, and
the cotton shipped by him, in the
summer Of 1867, to Messrs. IS. o,
Il T. A. Nelson Il Co., of this city.
As the object in view was to make
this o test suit, the consignees de.
clined to sell here, but procured
freight on a foreign vessel, and
consigned the cotton to a Liver
pool house for sale, on account OF
the owner. Harrington then in.
stituted 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 lille
gally taken from him in the shape
Of tax or duty. The Govern
ment made itself q party to the
suit by defending Saunders,
through its District Attorney.
Judgment was rendered against
Harrington after the Attorneys on
each side had agreed upon a state.
ment Of facts containingth the points
al issue, to be decided by the Su.
premc Court. Hence it was ap.
pealcd TO Washington for 4 final
hearing,
On the part Of Harrington this
case was deliberately and ably ar
gued by briefs of Judge John A.
Campbell, of this city Judge VIM
L. Sharkey, of Mississippi Rob
'ertson Todd, of Memphis, and
Judge James Hughes, of Indiana,
and orally argued by p. Phillips,
of Washington, and Judge Curtis,
OF Boston.
Ii was contended by counsel
that the tax was a direct one. and
not laid in conformity to the rules
OF apportionment as provided in
Article the First of the Constitu.
ton that it was q tax without
representation; that 1t did not
come within the rules of uniform
ity as prescribed by the Consti
tuition that if regarded in the
light of an export tax or duty, il
was prohibited by the Sth Article
of the Constitution =; that if placed
on the footing of a special or ex.
elusive tax, without apportion-
ment 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 o.
the raw productions Of the eartl
In ana anrtinns NJ kltn VTni0n