The New York herald., 1871-02-09
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Gascs Submitted Witheut Oral ArGumcut--
ConstitutionRlity of the Cotton Tax.


Oh she ANSs
WASHINGTON, Feb s, 1871.
fo 400 Darid Docs pS TIE Ctty o. Chicago and
Reuld, collector Of TdxeS-Appeal rom the Circuit
Court Jor the Northern Disuact ar Htn0is.-Tne
question presented In this case Is whether under
she constitution OF the State of Illinois, which pre-
scribes uniformity IN taxation, one class OF prop.
errty, 80 Wit the shares OF banking associations
can be singled out aud assessed by Itself with rere-
renee 10 different point OF lime IRON that to winch
Oil other property l. referred FOR that purpose. by
m act OF the Legislature OF the State such shares
are 10 be assessed separately without regard 10
olheF properly, Tor taxation on the lst OF July OF
eacn year. Tne Llant,n IN error maintains that the
court below erred IN sustaining the assessment be-
cause II IL IN violation Of tn constitution. The de-
fendant insists that the court W sustained In is
siltutlon and laws by the State courts.
Nos u and o. present The same questions and arc
heard with tAis cause.
NO S. Leon rs Pejaan ana 7sco Other cases SO
and s2-Error 70 the cgcut court Jor ne Euste17l
DiStrict or LJuiSfand.In these cases the plaintiff
In error was sued AMI judgment ootainca against
iim, a. security on judicial bond, In each case
gwen ia the State court, Tor the forthcoming OF
Spanish vessel which was seized py order Of that
court Ia sun against the owner on defendants IN
error VINO claimed lien and privilege on the yes.
Sci Tor seamen's wages. The master maze no an
Rearance and Judgment was aganss him by de-
iAnil. lhese SUITS were then coMmen need against
the piamuu In error as security. lie objected that
TIE actions were based on an admiralty bond IN a
proceeding Ia feAi, over which tao Court had no
jurisdiction, and mat the bond was taken co7dYn
non Jaatce, aud was VOID. The exception was over
RUE and he wiz OF error Is taken 10 tue judgment
rendered
No. IT. Treoilco0k, Administrator, DC, rs WI
son-Lr7or 10 tie supreme Court or the state ar
iotfa-The question presented In this case Is the
legal tender questionable same as decided in Bron.
son Vs. Phelps q Wall, 22e, Butter vs.. Horwitz 40.
10, 2Ssl aud Hepburn W.. Griswold Is Wall, 6o3,.
Counsel Tor tue plaintiff In error relies on those
decisions. Counsel for defendant in error says
aiter reference 10 the arguments and decisions IN
bbose cases:-"Whateyer benelt the defendants in
error may be entitled to under any further adjudI
canon of this question in the now pending
we Dope may be considered and AWARDED Them In
the examination Of this casen IL is submitted
however ihat the court is without jurisdiction ior
technical reasons.
No. Q. Wtusana N. Rarrtngton, Plafat(r In Error.
rs. Rotfe S. Sduaders-Error 10 the Circuit court
fcr ne DisY1ot or West Tennessee.-This is the re.
argument OF this cause the Court having so directed
on account OF the importance OF the questions In
volved. The plaintiff In error the owner OF $50
bales OF cotton on which the tax or three cents
per pound imposed by the Internal revenue act OF
July 1856, was levied. He refused TO pay the tax
but finally did so under protest, in accordance
win tue practice III such cases under the
customs revenue laws, TO save the seizure OF
The cotton; and this suit was brought 10 recover
back the sum paid, the plaintiff alleging
that the lax Is violation OF those PROVISIONS OF the
constitution which prohibit the laying OF capitatton
or 0tner direct taxes, uniess in proportion TO tie
census, and me laying OF duties on articles eX-
ported from any State. The Judgment below was
IN iavor OF the government aid writ or error was
taken 10 this court The paintn III error maintains
tnat by the established law as derived ron the con-
sntuton, tax on lands and houses and capita
consumption or expense are indirect aud that an
"a rat rem taS on personal property without rele-
renee 10 consumption ~ OF the same character az
Ru al pdlOea tax on land, both being direct. These
conclusions are arrived al ater elaborate exam.
nation OF the subject OF taxation, ana they are SUD-
inIitec 70 the Court sufficient show that the
lax IA question, LEVIED as 1t Is directly upon produc
ton, without reference TO lis use consumption,
4 n Itr4n xplGg -.
nDy oy the rule OF appoftIonment on the other
brancn Of the argument Il insisted that cotton Is
hn aFuce produced Tor eAporJat on. and cotton
ttsllcs are quoted 10 show the fact From $50 10
1866 threeO Ouiths 10 five sxths OF the cotton raised
In the United states was exported snd n the years
1850, 1866 ana lso. the exports were two-thrds TO
thfee-iourtns. For the year ending June 90 1867
e6l l37S50 pounds or the OF S202 80 were
exported. Oh the poftlon net exported from the
United States 1t is asserted as known fact that
but an Insignificant fraction is consumed in
the states wnere the cotton Is produced, the great
bulk OF IL beng exported 10 other states III the
Union. II Is contended nat this Is legislative de-
ci2Iatton thaI cotton shal not be exported without
paying tax, aud tDat II the constitution de-
feaied because the tax is not named expectation
tax, the admiration felt for lis power must be
changed into Contempt Tor It's impoency. The same
ruies oil Interpretation must be applied 10 this re-
stIcuou imposed upon the iedera! government az |
have uniformly been TO the like restriction Imposed
on lie states. While the former is prohibited
from leyying any tax or duty on articles
exported the latter are prohibited IRON levy
ing any imposts OF duty on imports or exports
TIE tax IN this case has no precedent in the past
provisions OF Inc constitution. IL IL can be main
iaIned then ali the objections made in the conyen-
ton which the constitution IN granting the taxing
power admitted are Iuily realized ana all the argu-
Ilents BY which they were answered proved to be
false. Tie Attorney General Oh behalf oi the gov
ernment, malrtains that the power OF taxation is
unl!miteQ, and The extent OF Its exercise rests
wholly IN the discretion oil the legislative branch OF
specified IA the consiituton-that direct tayee
sna s sna Sa /, n,5r tadt ali d1e
shall be iald on articles exported from any STATE
Tue ta& o1Jeced 20 must therefore, be plainly ana
Clearly SHOWN TO De within the exception Of the con.
tuition OF the objection cannot prevail. Every
presumption IS IN favor OF Its validity. The tax
here onplaiued Of Is direct tax being neituer
q tax on land nor tax on saves, or otBer capita
ton tax The case or Hylton vs.. the United States
(s DALI III is cited as an authority as 10 the notion
OF direct tax, IN which II held that direct
Tax includes only such a tax as is IN It's nature
capable OF apportionment, without creating grea.
inequality and injustice In the appllcation.
ihs tax on cotton is not capable or apporttonment
among tie States, as required the case OF direct
taxation, nor Is II in any case tax on lGud but
surety ana properly a duty laid upon SPECIFIC !
COMMODITY or ardcle OF consumption. Nor is this
tax on exports, because II IS laid alike ali cot
ton, whether exported or not, and without regard
" eHpoltaton. Articles exported from any State,
80, Siaun ans ieaslng o. we constitution, are 2rt-
cles exported irom any state TO foreign countries.
The distinction between an eXDort dnTy and an ey-
cise s tiai 10 the one case the tax can only attach
upon lhe happening OF particular eYent-to wit Tie
expectation Of the article on winch IL ia lsid--
While IN the other the tax may attach to the
Arncle geheray and irrespective Of tho happening
OF such an event Where tax Of the after descrn
tion ~ isid upon commodity, whether grown or
manufactured, while 10 the nands or the producer
or manufacturer, and without regard to It's future
destination, It's character certainly does NOT become
changed into Tax o. the former description by tie
mere act that a part, or even the wnole al the
article thus taxed Is afterwards entered for export
10 foreign country. ThAt would make the legality
OF the tax depend not upon the crcumstascpa Ia
winch IL was adapted by the Legislature and which
existed at the time OF Its collection but upon those
subsequently uanspirlng al tie mere VIII OF indl-
viduais In other words, the law imposing tAe
taxes, though perfectly valid when II tool
nwtt
rendered void by events happening alter
It's purpose had been fully accomplished
and Its operation In reference 10 the
article had altogether ceased the principle II ae-
mitted would render OF little avail all excise taxa
ton upon articles OF commerce A State cannot tax
imports In The hands Uf the importer, but can tay
merchandise imported after IL has passed out Of the
hands OF The importer or, In his hands after the
packages are broken. On she SAME principle Con.
Qress can tax as commodity, merchandise Ia the