New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-09
WASHINGTON.
Relieving Vessels from Compulsory Pilot.

introduced bill to relieve ships and yes
sells from compulsory pilot fees in certain
cases. Referred to the Committee on Com.
merce. 1t provides that no owner, agent
master or consignee of any ship or vessel
duly registered or enrolled shall, by virtue
of the laws of any State. be compelled to
take, employ or pay pilot not voluntarily
| employed on entering or departing from
any port or harbor, passing through or
leaving any channel, passage or strait
within the harbors of the United States.
| and no owner, agent, consgnee or master
| OF any ship or vessel shall be compelled to
pay pllotage or pilots fees by virtue of the
laws of any State.
The New French Minister.
Mr. Bartholdi, the newly appointed en-
voy extraordinary and minister plenipoten-
tiary of France, presented his credentials
to the President to-day.
Combinations.
Henry c. johnson, commissioner of Gus
toms; George S. Fisher. of Georgia, consul
at Biererel; BEN amin F. Bell, postmaster.
Americus, Georgia; Fabius Stanley, rear
admiral, will probably command the Pa.
cite squadron.
A Question of veracity.
The Sanbern investigation brings out this
question of veracity between the assistant
secretary and the solicitor of the United
States treasury:
Banfeld, On the stand, stated that he had
no responsibility in the matter of executing
the law; that rests solely upon the Secre-
tary of the Treasury. He never asked the
secretary to give anyone contract or sug-
gested anything IN reference to the per cent 1
to be given.
Referring to the late testimony of the as
sistant secretary, Sawyer, that he, Banfield.
had solicited a letter from him in behalf of
Dr. Presberg, the witness stated that he
never solicited any such letter. and that no
such conversation ever took place. He was
quite positive on this point.
Estimate of the Vote on the Canal Bill
1t is estimated by the Louisiana members
in the House that the South will go nearly |
solid for the Fort St. Philip canal bill
The stockdale Cases in the Supreme
Court.
In the Supreme Court to-day the argu-
ment in the StOckdale cases against the |
Merchants Mutual Insurance Company and |
other New Orleans corporations, |
was resumed and concluded. 1t was con. |
tended by the Solicitor General and the At.
torney General on behalf of Stockdale,
plaintiff in error, that sections I2O and 122
of act of June 30, 1864 which imposed taxes
upon dividends of banks, insurance and
railroad companies, levied the taxes
upon the corporations named and
not upon the shareholders, were therefore
not alfected by the one hundred and nine
teenth section. limiting the tax on customs
in the year 1869, which, it was cOntended,
applied only to the taxes imposed by the
one hundred and sixteenth section of the
act. 1t was further cOntenGed that even if
this were not so, that Congress, by the act
Of July Ii, 1870 reinstated the tax against
the corporations by name, and that although
h.a ,,a$ of 4
Congress could only take effect after the
passage of the act, yet that the effect of
IMPOSING an income tax must be given |
% the act 1t was further cOntended |
hat if the court should hold that the |
AK expired with the year 1869, then in |
he cases where the dividend embraced |
earnings of both 1869 and 1870, the judg-
nent of the court below, which is in favor
If the corporations, should be reversed and
emanded, with instructions to ascertain |
he amount of such earnings for 1869. On
ne other hand it was cOntended by j. ID.
Rouse, on behalf Of the corporations, that
III taxes upon incomes expired by limita- |
ion on the thirty-tirst day of December, |
1863; that the tax imposed by sections l20 and
y upon dividends was not tax upon the
but tax upon their share
folders, being the same tax imposed by the | s
ne hundred and sixteenth section; that (
aid sections simply provided method of
the income tax when the income |
ak was derived from the dividends of cor
oratiOns; that they were made the agents
f the United States for the collection of I
he tax; that this view was sustained by the |
rOvisiOns authorizing corporations to de-
uct the tax thus paid from the dividends |
efOre paying the came to the stockholders. | e
1t was further contended that no effect
ould be given to the act Of July IA, 1870, con S
truing the former act to be in force until |
.ugust |, 1870, because Congress can not
construe statutes, and because | j.
-hether the tax is considered to be upon |
le income of the corporation or upon that !.
the shareholder, it is obnoxious to the
provision requiring uniformi-
yin excise taxes by retaining such tax at
We per centum, when, by the same Act, the
TX upon all other incomes was reduced to n
TO and one-half per cent d
1t was also argued that if the earnings of o
le several corporations for the year 1869 "
lould be held to be subject to tax, al 81
lOugh not divided or paid to the stock "
older until 1870, yet if included in mass | Il
18th the earnings OF the latter year which | e
ere subject to any tax, the assessment
hole is void and the error fatal to the case J.
the plaintiff in error, as the court is | r
ithout power to legaliZe an assessment
Did in its inception. Counsel analyzed the | I,
ariOus decisions of the court constituting
% statutes, showing them to be in har- L
ony with the exception of the Barnes
ses, decided by bare majority, and sub
quently overruled, as he cOntended, by ii
e case of the United States against the | +,
alhmore and Ohio Railroad COMPANY. n
ae Barnes cases were relied upon by the G
aintif in error. a
No. I'll. Stockdale W. Vallette Dry Dock 4
Judgment in this case vas =