New-York tribune., 1875-02-19
THE COURTS.
n UNCONSTITUTIONAL REVENUE ACT.

AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL REVENUE ACI'
ARGUMENT IN THR SUIT AGAINST HUGHES CO.
TuE ACT OF JUNE p, 1874 RETRoACIiNN'
AND THEREFORE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
The trial of the case of the United Sta'ee
AGAINST George Hughes & Co.. IN which 1t Is soushe 4"
recover 100000 In gold for alleged frauds In 'ne
ton Of linen and linen thread, was resuineo 49,
In the United States District Court, oeioie '"une -
ford. The prominent features OF the =, ,ro
ana attemnt 70 mt IN evidence, under secuon vi 'e
act OF June % 1874, the books ana papers VI VI.
ants which had been excluded under 'uo "s' VI ~ 50
nss and a decision to the effect that' wnen "pp"eu y,
the case of Hughes & Co.. 'he nrs''he"~OA0" "'' -
M post rae,o aud therefore VOID.
Considerable time was spent IN formally eorrecu"s !"
,,o sotsfacton OF the gants the record respecting
the seizure and OF the books OF Hughes o. TO-
when that was DONE Mr.. Smith was recalled as o VIII
ness for the Government and Mr. simons asked him II
ne had in court books showing the business
transacted by the firm of Hughes Co. In May le@
Inaee Btehiord said that under his construction OF the
act OF Feb 9 ls the witness could not be required TO
answer the question, but that he wished TO- he could
make on admission. Mr.. Eaton replied that as his ell
snts we're opposed TO trying the case ON tecbnicaes
he would consent 10 Mr. Smiths admitting that ne had
the books in court The question was then answered In
the Affirmative and Mr. simons offered certain portions
of the books IN evidence. Mr. Eaton
ettected on the ground that the BOOKS
had been obtained from the defendants by means OF
judicial proceeding and that therefore, they coud NOT
under the OF Feb & 1 be used as evidence aeans.
them. Judge Blaehford sustained the otJecuon' anu
Mr.. smons took exception, the basis OF which was
that as the books had been returned to Hughes 0o'
they could not now DO regarded as seized books In
other words the motion put portions Of the books n
evidence was the nature OF proceeding under sHo
pena duccs hcUm. ~
After The noting OF his exception by the Court MT
smous made another attempt TO introduce the DOCKS ID
evidence, and in doing so be entirely changed MS tac
tcs and cited one act which, IN his opinion, practically
repealed the act OF 25 That act the one OF
OF June %, 1874 It's fifth section says:
In all suits and proceedings, other than criminal aris
ing under any OF the revenue laws Oh tne Uneh
IN his belief, any business book, invoice or paper DC
claimant will tend to prove any allegation made by the
United States, may make written motion particularly
forth the allegation which he expects TO prove; and
thereupon the which suit or proceeding Is pend
g a m prod3ce sseR invoice or paper
ia court any day and hour to be specihed III sad
notice: and il the defendant or claimant shall
fail or refuse produce such book Invoice, or paper IN
obedience such notice, the allegations stated IN sad
motion shall be taken as confessed unless his failure or
refusal 10 produce the same shall be expaneu 10 the
satisfaction Of the Court
Mr.. smons submitted n motion drawD as he claimed
in accordance with that section, and asked that under
It, the books specified motion be put in evidence
Mr.. Eaton objected on the following grounds
The OF June o. 1874 does not apply to cases pend
Therefore II applicable 10 tnS case IL ls
Unconstitutional. In the brief argument IN support OF
ms position Mr.. Eaton spoke substantially as toOws:
Congress did not intend by that act 10 extend the
powers Of the GoyerDmeDt IN seizure cases bat on
the contrary, 1t Intended to contract lls powers
suit against Hughes & Co. was begun before
the act Of June q, IS'!' was passed; u Is E
(octO law, aud unconstitutional. Again: The words Of
The are In all suits or proceedings arising II Is
eable TO suits arising "-thatls, arising after the pas
cage the act Had Congress intended it TO apply 10
I'm
se5 IA a dS Mr. EaloH also GS
Ihat the act Of June 2 1874 as well as the act OF Feb &
shalt be forced TO furnish evidence against himself
ana iransgrtssed well established rules OF eyidelte
relative to tfonses already committed.
Ia his reply tO Nj. Eaton Mr. Smons stated that the
June n ls7I was the only in opponents arcu-
ment worth considering. He then said; The C1nstitu
mon cxoressy declares that States shall not pass -
posi- JGctO laws, but not aware that there Is any
thing in tho Constitution prohibiting Congress from
passing such laws. At this point Judge Blachf0rd in
terrupting hiul, said You are mistaken Tho Supreme
Court OF the United states has DECIDED that Congress
Constitution says effect that Congress has no power
Mr simons replied that he had not examined tho
matter, but that be was perfectly willing to trust the
There Is a class Laws which, though retroactive IN
eject are not regarded US er post aco laws Laws OF
remedial iu that class, and the act of jane
a 1874 Is of such nature. 1t finds this suit pending,
and t merely gives new remedy by allowing the Gov
prnmcnt to obtain possession OF certain evidence.
When Mr.. simOns had hushed Judge Blachford imme
daicr replied: have no hesiiauOn Whatever saying
tDat the June 22 1874 applied TO this case
IS or post elO and therefore uhcOnsutuOna aud that
uDder defendants books and papers cannot be re-
ceyed in evidence. Nor IN the absence Of their pro
dueton tue allegations in tho motion be taken as
confessed conclusion, the Judge suggested that for
the purpose of trying the question III all OF Its
pects the Government make an attempt TO put the
books IN evidence by means OF SuJpeHC dtceS tecum
Instead OF acting upon the Judges suggestion, Mr..
simons moved 10 dispose Of by formally with
drawing juror. In making the motion, Mr.. Smons
said he proposed 10 begin another suit and apply
for n commission 10, take TESTIMONY abroad. Mr.. Eaton
objected aud the Judge SAID tha under all the clrcu-
stances, he wOuld allow juror TO DO Withdrawn.
The court adjourned until to-day. 10 give the Gov
1t Iiiill IfAr