The Helena independent., 1889-03-03
GROVER SAYS NO.
The Direct Tax Bill Returned TO Con-
gress by the President With
out His Approval.
He Says the Measure is Unconstiiu-
tional and the Bill Itself is
Far From Perfect.
nsdsction Of Taxation and Not the Return
Of Money Paid the Proper Thing
10 be Done.

WASHINGTON, March 2.-The president
In his message yetoins the direct tax bill,
after describing the bill in detail and Civ
ing the full history OF the matter says:
"Tbe conceded effect Of the bill is 10 take
from the money now In the treasury sum
OF more than seventeen millions OF dollars,
or, II the percentage allowed ls not lnclud
ed, more than fifteen millions of dollars,
and pay back TO the respective states and
territories the sums theircitizens paid more
than twenty-five years ago upon the direct
tax levied by the government of the United
States for defense and safety. IL is
my belief this appropriation of public
funds is not within the constitutional
power OF congress. Under the limited and
delegated authority conferred by the con
stitution upon the general government, the
statement of the purpose for which the
money may be- lawfully raised by taxation
In any form declares also the limit OF the
objects for which IL may beexpended. All
must agree the direct tax was lawfully and
constitutionally laid and rightfully and
correctly collected. IL cannot be claimed
therefore, nor Is II pretended that there
was any debt credited against the govern
ment and In favor OF any state OF in
dividual by the exactiOn of this tax.
Surely, then, the appropriation directed by
this bill cannot be justified as a paymelt
OF debt Of the United States. The pro-
posed disbursements Of this money clearly
have no relation 10 common defense. on
the contrary II Is the repayment OF money
ralsed and long ago expended by the gov
| ernment to provide for common defense.
| Its expenditure cannot be properly adyC-
Gated ON the ground that the general wei
fare of the United States Is thereby pro-
vided for or promoted This general welfare
OF the United States as used in the constitu-
tion only iustiiies appropriations for ma
| tiOnal objects. and for purposes which have
to do with the prosperity, growth or peace
and dignity of the nation; but II the consti-
| tutiOnal question involved in the consider
alton of this bill should be determined In Its
favor, there are other objections remaining
which prevents my assent 10 Its provisions"
The president here enumerates a num-
ber of defects in the bill, among them the
following: "The fact that the entire tax
was not paid furnishes no reason that
would not apply 10 nearly every case where
taxes are laid. There are always delin-
quents, and while the more thorough and
complete collection Of taxes Is a trouble
some problem OF the government, the fail
ure to solve the problem never has been
actually collected. The deficiency in the
collection OF this tax Is found al
most entirely In the insurTectionary states,
while the quotas appOrtiOned 10 the other
states were as q general rale full paid, and
three-fourths or fourfiftbs of the money
which IL Is proposed in this bill to return
would be- paid into the treasures OF loyal
states. But no valid reason for such pay
ment Is found In the fact that the govern
ment at first could not and afterwards for
reasons probably valid did not enforce col
lectio" N other states. There were many
fed al taxes which were not paid by the
people In the rebellions states. And II the
non-pa' ment by them of this direct tax en-
Titled other states to the donation Of
their share of said taxes paid by
their citizens, why should not the
income tax and many other internal
taxes paid entirely by the citizens OF loyal
states be also paid into the treasures of
these statesY Considerations which recOg-
nlze sectional divisions or the loyalty OF
different states at the time this tax was
laid should not enter into the discussion OF
the merits OF this measure. The loyal
states should not be paid the large sums Of
money promised them by the bill because
they were loyal, and other states were not,
nor should the states which rebelled
against the government be paid the small
sums promised them because they were in
> |
ther collection of their entire quota,
nor because this concession Ia
them Is necessary TO justify the proposed
larger gifts 10 other states. The people OF
the loyal states paid this direct tax as they
bore other burdens In the support OF the
government, and l believe the taxpayers
themselves are content In the light of
, paying of money from the federal treas
ury TO enrich the treasures OF the states.
| The baneful effect Of q surplus in the trea
, ury of the general government Is daily seer
i and felt. | do not think, however, this
, surplus should be reduced OF It's contagiou
spread throughout the states by method;
/ such as are provided In this bill. Another
! objection 10 the BILL" says the presi
dent. ''is its interference and unius
4 discrimination In the operation of the plaI
/ of reimbursement" He continues: 9Th,
\ existence OF n surplus In the treasury Is n,
answer To these objections. IL is still tn,
a peoples money, and better use can b'
q found for II than the distribution of IL upor
j, the plea of reimbursement OF ancient taxa
/ ton. A more desirable plan 10 reduce an,
a prevent the recurrence OF a large surplu
can easily he adopted; one that instead o
creating Injustice and inequality, promote
Justice and equality by leaving in th'
!, hands of the people and for their use tn
- money not needed by the government q
mon defense and the general welfar
y OF the United States The difficulties IL
the way of making a Just reimbursement
I, OF this direct tax instead OF accusing tn
imperfectness OF the bill under considers
tion, furnish reasons why the scheme
= proposes should not be entered upon.
|, am constrained upon the consideration
y herein presented 10 withhold my assen
II from the bill herewith returned, because
: believe IL 10 be without constitutional wal