Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-11-22
The COTTON-TAX,
Memorial 10 Congress from the People
OF the South, Praying the Refund.
nent Of the Illegally Collected
COttOnsTax.
The Case Stated Clearly, Fairly and
JOgiealIy-The Constitution and the
Law on the side OF the People
Of tine south.
Bill Proposed 10 30 introduced in Con,
gress to Accomplish the Results
Desired-The Benevolent
Features.


Features.
Memorial.
To the Senate and House Of Represent atives
OF the United States in Congress assembled
Your memorialists, citizens of ths
southern States, would respectfully
represent that, by virtue OF several acts
OF congress in the years 1865, 1855, 1857
and 1858, they were made to pay 8 tax
on raw cotton amounting in the aggre-
gate to about seventy thousand dollars
1 We respectfully ask yolT attention while
we attempt TO show as coneiselv as We
can, that this large sum of money has
been extOrted from us ia disregard Of the
CONSTITUTION. By the courts, jurists and
commentators, all taxation under the
constitution is defined to he direct oria-
direct. The constitution provides that
representation and direct t01es shall
be dppOTtiOned among the several States
according to their respective numbers +"
As nc provision in the acts levying this
tax was made 70 distribute the same in
proportion to population among the
1 people Of the several States, it is evi.
/ dent, if this was a direct, tax that this
/ provision OF the constitution was not OBJ
| served, therefore nuliity. II is not i'm
portaut to this inquiry whether this be
3 direct or an indirect tax. BY the acts
in question this taX was maze to
4 lake effect on the growing crop, which
I could not be moved from the place al
which it was grown without being PAID
OF secured to be paid. The constitution
| expressly mentions q tax on land as =
1 direct tax. If this provision can be
| avoided by taxing the immediate
I products of the land whilst grow
ing, Of what value is such a provision?
l If not 3 direct, il must be an indirect
lax 1t must be one or the other. All
/ indirect taxation is regulated. by this
| provision of the constitution: AN d.
/ ties, inlDOsGS ana eJciseS shall be uniform
/ throughout the United States" These
| words, ''1tRifOrD throughout the United
| Stdtes,n are used in three sections OF the
| cOnstitutiOn-first, in providing for the
I collection OF duties, impOsts and excuses;
| secondly, in providing uniform rules of
| naturalization and bankruptcy; thirdly,
| q providing for the election of a Presi-
/ dent and Vice-President. AS these are
| questions of universal application, snd
/ concern ali the people in all the States,
| terms were not intended to be used in a
less restricted sense, especially since the
/ courts have decided that the term United
| States, was the name given TO this re.
/ public, and included States, Territories,
and every part of it. The productions OF
/ all countries are regulated by soil and
| climate-by laws higher than the laws
I Of men. Especially is this the case
1 ID the United States, which extend oven
| so many degrees of latitude and longi-
/ Jude, over such an immense area, in
/ which the climate and productions are
so varied, By this supreme law of eli
mate, the production Of cotton in the
! southern States is confined to a narrow
I belt. within three and a half degrees of
/ latitude. II north or south of this belt
| cotton is occasionally produced, it may
be termed exceptional or spasmOdic
/ The cOtton-belt may be readily traced
on q map OF the United States. By
drawing these lines and then comparing
the limited area with the balance of the
/ United States, il will be found that il
does not exceed one tWenty-eighth part
II cotton is not grown or produced TO
any extent outside OF this 6elt, and not
at all in niDeteen-twentieth parts of the
United States, how is it possible such a
United States, in the meaning of COM
mon sense, and as contemplated by the
makers OF the constitution. The words
Of the acts levying this tax, sail cotton
grown or produced in tue United States,n
cannot make cotton grow where the eli
mate fOrbids, nor can they make that
uniform throughout" where il is not
so. That is impossible. The trainers OF
the constitution were not tricksteFs OF
quibbleTs. They intended by this clause, |
'1llifOrn throughout the United .StdteS,n
TO make provision which should apply
70 all the people of all the States, and
one which should be 1tFlif form in effect as
well as words, and such must be the con
stTuctiOn OF jurists and enlightened citi-
zens. Still further to guard against sec
tiOnal opp essiOn and unequal taxation,
as the productions of the several States
were 50 different, they inserted this adj
ditioDal clause in the constitution:
"NO tao or dtsty shall be laid on
articles exported from any Stdte' By
some persons this provision has been
construed to apply TO products export
ed to foreign countries only. The
trainers of the constitution were wise
men and scholarly, and well knew how |
to express their intentions. If they had |
intended to make this provision apply |
only to products exported abroad, would |
they not have used appropriate words |
and said, "0TticgeS exported from the /
United iStdtGS,n instead of the words, /
''GTticJeS exported from eUeTy Staten /
From their using the words they did,
it is obvious they were looking to an in
ter-State trade, to export from one State
into another State, rs well as abroad.
There can be no doubt about /
the meaning Of these words in
the constitution. When this claim
was under discussion they said:
"That the products Of the different
States were such as to prevent Uniform
ity IN such tax tThat there were but
few articles thar could be taxed at all
tObscco, rice, and indigo. A tax on
these alone Cotton was not then known
as an artile OF export, If so would be
partial aud unjust.n ''That to tax ex-
ports would engeuder incurabe Jealous
ies.n "rhat il might enable the gov
eminent to Cypress the States, as Ireland
was oppressed by Great Britain" "That 4,
the legislature could not be entrusted
with such a power; 1t might be ereT-
cjsed partially. raising one and deDTesS-
ing another part" For snch unmis- 1
taxable reasons this clause was inserted I
In the constitution preventing congress
from taxing exports. Can there be a /,
doubt about it, when we find Mr.. Rufus
King, a member Of the convention, aris-
ing in his place Immediately after this /
clause was agreed upon, making this
declaration: "In tlCO great points, the
hands Of the legislature 10ere ALSO {
,litelg tied. The importation Of I
slaves could not be prohibited; {
exports could not be taxed" Can there {
be q doubt about it when we find Mr.. i
Madison, justly styled the father Of the ]
twelve years afteTWard, II
when making his report on the " Vir- {
ginia resolutions using this declara- i
lion: "a tar on exports can be IGid 6g {
10 constitutional authority 1UllGteUeT.n !
Mr.. Justice Storey, commenting on this I
clause, said: The pO10er IS 1ghOlly Z
aiken dl0dg TO i7teTnJeotdle NTH the SUD- I
iect Of exports" In the congress OF the I
United States, in 1892, we find Mr.. Will
hanson, who had been a prominent Z
member Of the Federal convention, t
after referring 10 these restrictive clauses :
IN the constitution, using this language: c
% The clear and obvious intentions Of The 1
articles mentioned 10ere that congress I
might not haze the DolUeT to gratitg one 5
part Of The Union by depressing another. L
To prevent the possibility Of such a COM I
biH0tiOn, the articles mentioned aUere IN !
serted IN the constitution To these I
high authorities, we might add nu- q
mer0us decisions OF our courts, saving I
AExpOrts cannot De taXed,u aud other G
weig1ty authorities al ingiraitttnl, all 90 !
ing TO show that exports could not be {