The Saline County journal. [volume] (Salina, Kan.) 1871-1893, 1890-04-10


CLAUSE had storpsd here ans ren.issd IN this
ported IN tie dnst draft IN the crnveufton1
there could not have been the siighfesf eoust
On the subject
Now the material psrt comes In.
Ths absclute power 20 lay taxes inelude-
NE Power IN sxery Sorn IN which a may be
Lsgisiasure may ekoose % Apply a. ms rr-
sulls rom the very nature OF such m unre-
ssrisied Pgver. A sortiori q nay = spPlied
hsss sssa seeisi0aasd 20 apply IL. Nov.
nothing 4 more clear. fr0sn he history OF
eosrmsrciai nations, than the fact that the
ether purposes than revense. II Is often APP
piled as regulAtion Of commerce. IL 10 Of
And this becomes more interest
Ing - I proceed g.
70 b oslsn spplIed e. virtual probation on
theiu2ortsfiono Of particular srtieles ZOE the
encouragement AMI prUteesion OF domestic
pr0duets and Industry: for The support Of
agriculture, commerce, and manufactures;
fof retaliation upon foreign monopoiies and
state policy and domestic economy: pome-
times 70 banish noxious article Of con-
sumption
Like oleomsrgarine-
snmstimt ~ boaniy upon an Infant man
ufncture or agricultural product: sometimes
as . temporary restraint Of trade; some
I call the attention Of the DOUBLING
ThomAses TO this declaration:
Sometimes - . suppression Of particular
employmenta; sometimes ~ . preoxntive
power 20 destroy competition and secure q
monopoly 10 the Government.
Section go:
1.-THE common defense or general welfare
The phrase employed 10 the eight b
section Of the first article Of the
constitution
can be promoted by laying taxes In any
other manner than for revenue. who u ~
liberty 20 say thai Congress cannot cUnstitu-
poss; No one has a right 10 say that IN
common defense and general welfare
ean never Be promoted 6y laying taxes.
sxesp, foF revenue.
Thoss, therefore, Who hold the opinion
above stated must unavOldably msinfaln thai
revenue. but extends 90 all cases Wherr % Is
proper TO he used for the common defruse
and general welfare.
Section 80:
40 that, whichever construction of the
power % lay taxes u adopted, the same con-
taxes 10 MT by the Consultation confined Io
purposes Of revenue. In point oG fnei 10 has
| never been limited TO such purposes BY Con-
/ ssNnss auA kTNat NulctiOuuflee ol
Government have certainly maintained the
doctrine that u was not cOnstitutionaIly 50
limited.
IL the authority Of this great
writer on constitutional law IL worth
anything, the power 10 raise revenue
aud the power 10 levy a tax are
absolutely different. They are
capable Of being exercised by entire
ly different functions. We may tax
irrespective Of the question Of
re !enue, and that IL what Is iu-
tended TO be done In the amendment
I propose TO the bill reported by the
Senator from Ohio. That IL the
reason why the language In the
ninth section, Ina the first and second
lines, upon which the Senator from
Louisiana animadverted, was In
serted, not with any idea Of leaving
u doubtful whether this was q tar
bill for the purpose OF revenue or q
bill for the suppression OF q he.
fsrious aud reprehensible practice
| do not desire to be misunderstood.
or mistaken, or missppreheBded.
Those words were inserted for q
purpose, for the purpose of asserting
affirmatively that under the eOustitu-
ton, the power to tax being sdmit-
ted to exist In order to suppress o
traffic believed to he Injurious, THU
was the Intention aud tile design of
the amendment.
But sir, we are not without wit
nesses 50 far rs the validity Of the
Interpretation Of the constitution by
MI. Justice Story IL concerned.
refer to the well-knswD case In 81
Wallace, Of VeaEie Bank vs.. Fenno,
In which the power Of the United
States To levy 10 per cent. tax upon
the circulating medium OF State
banks, not iOr the purpose Of raising
q revenue, but for the purpose OF
destroying their circulation, was
directly brought within the purview
Of the Supreme Court itself. The
holding Of the court was:
The tax Of 10 per cent. Imposed by the at
Of July IS, lsB5. on the notes state bank paid
out auer the LIST Of August, lss8. II warranted
by the constitution
although it Was admitted I'm the
argument that the object and pur-
pose Of that tax was hot 10 raise o
revenue but 10 suppress the circula-
ton OF the State hanks aud practi-
eally destroy IL read the closing
sentence OF the opinion of the dis
senting judges, who reached the
same conclusion by different route,
dlsagrrelng with some Of the pre-.
eepts laid down by the msjority Of
the court In the decision, which was
delivered by Chief Justice Chase:
We say nothing a. 10 the pu pose OF this
heavy tax Of some ~ per cent, upon the
banks, 10 Of which we can not but regard as
Imposed upon the pow, Of the states TO
create them. Indeed, the purpose u scarcely
Concealed IN the opinion o. the court.
II l. sufficient tO add that the burden Of tie
tax, white 70 has encouraged these tanks, |
has prONed fatal To those Of the states; and II |
we are at liberty to Judge of the purpose Of |
an act from the Consequences that the fol- |
lowing, h l. not perhaps going too far To say |
that these consequences were Intended.
Mr.. BUTLER. How did the
court stand, 10 I may ask the
Senator? How many dlsseuted?
MIR. INGALLS,. Two dissented.
Justices Nelson aud Davis dissented.
In further support OF the same pro-
position i refer to the case In lOl
United States reports, OF the
nation bank vs.. United States, In
error TO the circuit court of the
United States for the eastern district
Of Arkansas. In this case the
opinion was delivered by Mr.. Chief
Justice Waite In October, 1879, aud
he alludes 10 the power Of taxat ion
aud expOunds u, and shows wherein
10 differs from the revenue 30 yer,
and the fact that IL can be used
otherwise than for revenue pur-
pOses. This IL his language:
The taS thus laid Is not on the obligation,
SsS S ,s Z: T cis Pstsu, .5, TSy sD
pality has no right 10 put its notes In clreula-
ton ~ money. IL may execute rs oblign-
tons, but can mt, against The will of Co..
gress, make them Money. The tax IL on the
culatlng medium. Such q use Is against tine
policy OF the United States. Therefore, the
banker uho helps to keep up the use by
paying them out, that g. employing them ~
the equivalent OF money In dlsrharginE his
Is taxed for what he does.
The closing paragraph is as fell
lows: |,
The taxation was no doubt Intended 10
zen, Congress had the power g. do.
I think, unless some decisions or
sOne argument or some evidence or
he authority Of some great writer
san be adduced to the contrary, that
hose who have pronounced against
he validity, the legality, the con- 9
Of this amendment
will see nc to revise their opinion. ,
Ualess this amendment which pro-
sOses to tax 10 intended 10 raise
'evenne lt need not originate In the
House Of Representatives, because .
Dnly those measures which are for
'aising revenue must originate In