Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-12-15
The Supreme Court and the Tariff

Chicago Tribune.
In an article in the December number
of the North America Re0iew on ere
form in Federal Taxation" Mr.. David
A. Wells says:
How grim was the satire, and yet how keer
was the truth, embodied in the last years Joke
| of a comic paper which put into the mouth oi
| the gallant Democratic candidate for the Presi
dency, after the publication of his letter of ac
| ceptance the following answer to an inter
viewer on the subject: TARIFF Who is he?' and
| how well the party put themselves in align
ment with their candidate on this subject
| when, in ignorance of the material in their
ammunition boxes and of q decision by the
| United States Supreme Court 20 Wallqce %.
| $685. that taxation for any other purpose than
public revenue exclusively is unconstitutional
and inconsistent with the principles of a free
government they turned their backs on their
od-time principles and became frightened at
| the shadow of their own platform.
A correspondent asks: "What is the
decision referred to by Mr.. Wells?"
1t is the decision in the we'll known
case of the Loan Association of Cleve-
land VS.. the City of Topeka. This was
a suit brought to compel the payment of
interest on 800, 900 in bonds issued by
the city of Topeka, Kansas, ''as dona-
ton to encourage the King Wrought
Iron Manufacturing and Iron Works
Company of Topeka, in its design of es-
tablIshing a mandatory of iron bridges
in that CITY," The United States Circuit
Court for Kansas held that the bonds
were invalid as not having been issued
for "a public purpose" The Supreme
Court of the United States affirmed the
decision of the court below. Justice
Miller delivered the opinion of the Su.
preme Court Some OF the propositions
laid down by him were:
1, There is no such thing in the theory of our
governments, State or National, as unlimited
power in any of their branches. The Execu-
tive, the Legislative, ard the Judicial Depart.
ments are all Of limited and defined powers
2. There are limitations of such powers
which arise out of the es ssential nature of all
free governments; implied reservations of in
d1v1dual rights without which the social COM
pact could not exist, and which are respected
by all governments entitled to the name
3. Among these is the limitation of the right
of taxation, that it can only be used in aid of a
public object, an object which is within the
purpose for which governments are estab-
lished.
4. 1t cannot. therefore. be exercised in aid of
enterprises strictly private for the benefit of
individuals, though in a remote or collateral
way the local public may be benefited thereby
5. Though the line which distinguishes the
public use for which t1xeS may be assessed
from the private use for which they may not
is not always easy to discern yet it is the duty
OF the courts, where the case falls clearly
within the latter class, to interpo9e when pro-
perly called on for the protC ,tion of the rights
of the citizen, and aid to prevent his private
property from being unlawfully appropriated
TO the use of others
In the course of the opinion the court
used the following language:
To lay with one hand the power of the gov
ernment on the property OF the citizen and
with the other to beStow it upon private indi-
vlduals to aid private enterprises and build up
private fortunes, is none the less a robbery
because it is done under the forms of law and
is called taxation. This is not legislation. It
is decree under legislative form
NOT is 1t taxation. A tax y says Webster's
Dictionary, lis a rate or sum of money assessed
on the person or property of a citizen by gov
ernment for the use of the nation or State
Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the
legislature upon persons or property to raise
money for public purposes. (Cooley on "Con-
stitutional Limitations. y
The Supreme Court held (Justice Cliff
ford only dlssenting) that there can be no
lawful tax which is not laid for "a pub-
lie purpose" 1t did not undertake to
define precisely what a public purpose
was further than to decide that the es-
tablishment of manufactures by private
individuals for the benefit which they
might indirectly confer upon the com
munity was not such purpose.
The court below, Judge Dillon presid-
ing, was even more explicit. In deciding
this case it simply reafirmed the opinion
previously delivered by it in the Com
mercial Bank VS.. the City of lola, Kan
sas Dillon 2, 362). where the following
language was used:
The question under discussion must he de-
termined upon some principle, and hold il 70
be sound doctrine that the mere incidental
benefits to the public or the State which result
from the pursuit by individuals of ordinary
branches OF business or industry do not consti-
tute a public use in sense which justifies the
exercises OF either the power Of eminent do
main or of taxation.
There seems to be no doubt but that
the Supreme Court Of the United States
if case involving the issue directly
should come before it would reafflrm the
opinion of Judge Dillon in its broadest
application. 1t has gone just as far in
denying the cOnstitutionality of protec-
tive taxes, as it reasonably could on the
facts presented to it. Yet one of the pro.
fessional tariff cranks in the late Chicago
convention had the impudence to assert,
and wrote an essay to prove that "a
tariff for revenue was unconstitutional.