Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-12-29
rHE OorTON CLAIMs IN CONGREss.

TIA CgELON GLAIAb H SoN6hEtsS
A bill Is now before Congress to re.
fund the tax collected by the United
States on.rsw cotton in the years 1856,
1867 and 1858. The amount involved in
the claims for reclamation is about
seven millions. By the act OF July l3l
] 1856, q tax Of three cents per pound wa;
imposed by Congress on all cotton
raised In the country. The act, 1t is
pretty generally conceded, was arbitra'
~, without a precedent, and really de
signed as q punishment for the cotton
States. Its validity has always been
questioned, and never yet judicially sus-
tanned.
The legal grounds on which the
claims are said to rest, may be briefly
stated as follows: The law of 1866 inn
poses a tax on the products Of the soil OF
certain States, when exported, contrary
to the constitution, which declares that
''no tax or duty shall be laid on articles
exported from any State" This seems
clear and well taken, because the law
expressly forbade any rebate OF tax on
expectation of the cotton. The validity
Of this ground is cOrroboTated by the
fact that, when the law was under con-
sideration in Congress, Thaddeus
Stevens offered a resolution to
amend the Constitution Of the
United States by adding thereto
e provision that Congress shall have
power to lay an export duty OF tax on
cotton exported from the United States. F"
The next ground is that the tax Is lie
gal, because 1t is not uniform, while the
Constitution expressly requires that ''ali
duties, imports and excise shall be uni
form throughout the United States. "
This proposition is not sound, as it has
been many times Oyerruled in many an
aloqOus cases. The required uniforml-
~ only relates 70 the rates, not to the
subjects, of taxation. The other ground,
usually urged with great earnestness, is,
that the cotton tax is direct tax, being
a tax on a raw product Of the soil, and
shall therefore be assessed, il imposed at
all, not upon the pound or the product
itself in any form, but upon the several
States Of the Union according to their
respective populations under the census,
because the Constitution declares that
tsuo capitation or other direct tax shall
be laid unless in proportion to the CEN
sus.u The judicial constructions on this
proyision are unsatisfactory, and it can
scarcely Dc bdlu tc-Ndg NheAN 10 - nc eAAiN
proper Interpretation has ever yet been
judicially determined.
The above is from the Banner, which
is kindly enough, though it may be re-
marked that few papers outside Of cot
ton-producing districts have any ade-
quate apprehension of the hardships
borne by the people from whom this
enormous tax was wrested. It fact, the
country has never recovered from the
injuries inflicted, and, even now, in all
the cotton-grewing States, one-third at
least of the cotton farms are advertised
for sale for taxes. The war begat rob
bers and thieves, and the spirit of law
less highwaymen affected even govern
lneuts themselves. Burdens Of taxation
have been quadrupled in cities, counties
and States, and oficeholders grow rich
even as the people are impoverished. If
the petition Of these Southern States for
relief be granted, twenty or thirty mill
lions Of money will be restored to the
farmers of the South. OF all cotton
tax claims held by gentlemen who
TO secure justice at the hands
of Congress, the half of each is retained
by the original cotton producer, wheth-
er black or white, and only small
share of outstanding government re-
ceipts for this tax is held by the so-called
ring at Washington. In fact, "the
ring'' is constituted mainly Of mer-
chants of the South, who originally ad-
vaneed the tax for the farmers, the lat
Ter agreeing now to pay the merchant
Dne-half for collecting. Such are the
facts as stated in communication adj
dressed to us by planter, and the
above is written in answer to his inquF
lies. If exact justice be done, the tax
will be refunded and the pending bill
enacted. II is believed that the bill
will lsss.