New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-09
THE COURTS.
TIE COTTON-TAX CASE.

REARGUMENT BEFORE THE L. :. SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON, Feb. s.-William NJ Earring
ton plaintiff in error, agt Role Saunders error to the
Circuit Court for the District OF West Tennessee This
T. the reargment of this cause, the Court having so
directed on account OF the importance OF the question
involved.
The plaintiff I'm error was the owner Of bales Of cot
ton on which the tax Of three per pound imposed
hv the Internal Revenue act Of July, 1860, was levied
I'VE reused 20 pay 'S mel, I3 1b ou, uI cb u nr
the Customs Revenue laws to save me seizure OF me
back the sum paid, the plaintiff alleging that
the tax Is violation OF those provisions of
the Constitution which prohibit the LAYING OF
capitation or other direct taxes unless proportion 10
the census and the laying ~ duties articles eNporei
from anv state The Judgment below was in favor the
The plaintiff Interior maintains that by the established
law as derived from the Constitution tax on lands and
hOuses and capatinn tax ara direct Taxes on specific
articles OF consumption or expense are Indirect and That
ad raloreH personal property. without refer
rdOrem tax on land, both being direct These conclu-
sons are arrived at after an elaborate eXamina-
ton OF the subject Of taxation. and they sub
mitted 10 the Court as sufficient to show that the
tax in question levied IL is directly upon produc
ton, without reference to its consumption, is IN
its nature, direct tax which can be levied only by the
rule Of apportionment On the other branch OF the ar
gument, il insisted that cotton is article produced
FOR expectations and cotton statistics are quoted to show
the fact From 1870 10 1854 threefourths 10 nvesXts
Of the cotton raised in the United states was expored
and in the years 1865 1866 and 1861 the exports were two
thirds TO threeOurths For the year ending June 80 1901
Co., l37,S70 pounds, Of the value of sOO90 were tA
ported OF the portion not exported from the United
states II Is asserted as known TACT that hut an lsls
ncant fraction is consumed in the states where the cot
ton il produced, the great bulk Of il being exported
TO other states IN the Union. IL ls e0ntehued
that this is legislative declaration IIar COZ.
tax and that if the Constitution can he defeated because
the tax not named expectation tax the admiration
felt for It's power must be changed INTO contempt
for rs mpoency Inc sane rules OF lnleIpeta' ION
must be applied 70 this restriction imposed upon the
Federal Government have uniformly been to the Ike
restriction imposed on the states Nle Ihe iotiheI Is
prohibited from laying any tax or duty on articles eA
posts duty imports exports. The tax In tins
has precedent IN the past action OF the tOvern
ton. II n can be maintained then an the OBJECTIONS
made In ne convention Whch the CONSTITUTION IN grant
ing the taxing power fully realized, and all the argu
TI ,t{{orn,r eueTaI on behalf Of the Goyernment
the extent of its wholly In the discretion
Of the legislative branch Of the Government except in
taxes shall be- apportoned; that all duties lmIC'ts,
and shall De uniform. and no tax shall be Laid ON
must therefore be plainly ana clearly shown ~ br Wth
the exception Of the Constitution or the objection cannot
prevail Every presumption Is IN favor OF his validity
Tie tax here complained Of il not direct tax, being
neither tax ON land nor tax ON slaves or oheI caa-
ton tax. The case OF HylOn agt. The United states
% Dali I'D is cited an authority as 10 the notion
direct tax includes only such a tax as Is IN
it, nature capable OF apportionment without creating
great inequality ana injustice IN tAc alpil,al'un..
This tax on cotton is not capable OF apporuonmeut
among the states as requTcd III me as %. ,Ii &
On, j. h in any tax on land, Dut strictly ana
properly duty laid upon speelhc commonly OF aIu
OF 20.
1t laid alike on al cotton whether exported OF I"',
and without regard TO expectation. Articles exported
from any state within the meaning OF the Constitution
are articles exported nom any std'e 10 IoIrrn e3uL-
tries. The distinction between an export duty ana an
excise is that III the one case the tax can only attach
upon the happening OF particular event. OWL 'nS "a
pOrtauOn Of the article on which Is lad
article generally aud irrespective Of the happening Of
such an event Where tax of the latter description Is
laid upon commodity whether grown or manufactured,
while in the hands OF the producer or manufacturer,
and without regard to its future destination Ms charac
former description by the mere fact that part or even
the whole, Of the article thus taxed Is aferwaId en-
tered xpOr % a foreign country. That would make
the legality OF the tax depend not upon the circum,
subsequently ranspfng az the mere VIII or lndiNlduais
In other words the law imposing the taxes though per
fccty valid when it took effect upon the article
taxed. would be rendered void by events happen
ing after It's purpose had Deen luAS ac'1 3
phshed and its operation in reference to me
article had altogether ceased Inc principle AUNT
ted would render OF Atte avll al ttcse aAaIon u
articles of commerce. STATE cannot TAX IIPOlts i'll h5
hands Of the Importer bu an lax leI "a
after ii has passed out OF The hands OF tle R
II in s hands after the packages are bIOAtn OI lAe
SANE RrlIGlHe, Snste ~ ~, 80 a. TiR I after
ohenhi-@ " TIE hanis Oi us prouuceiI wiz, las
ward exported, the tax being paid upon the produc
Ifand I'm cosequente OF such expectation. Tie fact
that more than half the cotton produced IN
MAJ nothing 10 DO with the consttutonaty Of the law
II Congress cannot cOnsttutOnaly lay tax upon the
more than onehaf Of it il exported, it cannot upon any
commodity OF which less than oue-half is exported
not depend upon the state Of trade; and II Con-
gress cannot cOnstitutiOnally tax any commodity
lay any excise tax on commodities AZ all Win
out providing for a drawback in case Of expectation
such construction nulllhes the power OF congress
TO Law excise taxes. The tax II an excise tax,
and il uniform throughout the United states.
The fact that cotton or any Othcf hTUcle II
not produced found alike in all parts OF the country
does effect the question. There Is no product OF ag
culture or manufacture which found in all the states
in quantities exactly prOpOrtOnahe 70 the population
nyhng else OF all the state IL has been the opinion
frttru
legislation that taxes personal property Kept Tor use
excise taxes much as on personal property made
for sale and the such products "a tobacco
manufac tured OF made for sale, an excise tax
=. Phillips j. NJ. Carlisle, Pike Johnson Judge shar-
kew Judge Hughes, r. TOpp, b. r. Curtis and VIM. VI.
Evarts for plaintiff the Attorney General
and Assistant for the Government. The argument VIII
several DAYS.