Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1892-06-06
THE WALES MANDAMUS.
He Claims Sill $50 % Commissions
or the Refunded War Tax
Money
Arguments Of Counsel Before Court.

Attorney General Poe and exGOTer-
nor and ex-Attorney General Whyte.
made able arguments before the Circuit
Court here to-day, in the maDdamus case
of Sidney l. WALES. TO recover IS State
agent, sill .3SO.94 being 80 per cent.
commission on the amount refunded BY
the general government on account OF
the war tax paid by the State in 1861
In his testimony on Saturday, Ex
Governor Jackson, who was called for
the petitioner, testified that he had APP
pointed Mr. WALES under the act of 1878
and had signed power of attorney au-
thoriZing him to settle claims which he
considered were embraced within the
act of Assembly. They had several in
terviews on the subject, and after the
passage of the bill by Congress, Mr..
WALES had solicited him to urge Presi-
dent Cleveland TO sign the measure II
did not go to Washington, however.
said the Governor. but communicated
with Senator German, and did all could
to get the President To sign the claim,
which he. however, refused TO do, the
bill having been vetoed at that time.
Senator German had informed me of the
intention of the President to veto the
bill +"
Mr. Poe opened argument for the State
HI III % CLOCK anu CiOsCu ~ 1S-ou. liz
was followed In an able argument by ex-
Governor Whyte for WALES. speaking
nearly three hours. The case is held
under advisement.
Mr.. f G. CAN'T. for the State. said
"The Act of Congress of August 8. 1861.
levied a tax of $50 0e0,000 upon the peo
pie of the United States and purposely
apportioned 1t against the several States,
Territories and District of Columbia
This was conceded by the petitioners
counsel and by the argument of Hon. j.
Randolph Tucker, filed as an exhibit In
the case, to be within the constitutional
power of Congress 1t cannot be sue
cessfully contended that because of the
inability of the government to enforce
constitutional amendment and
collect the direct tax from the people OF
the States in hostility the imposition of
the tax was unconstitutional, or that the
suppression of collection of this direct
tax, which was done by Congress. gave
any right or claim to the people who had
paid such tax to be refunded such pay
ments. In order to entitle the petition
er to the percentage of the amount paid
by the United States government to the
State of Maryland, he must show that
such payment was of "claim" OF the
State. The act of Congress of August B,
1861, imposed the direct tax on the peo-
pie of the United States. This Congress
had the right to do-not in the States,
for this II had not right to do. The as
sumption of the quota of the people OF
the State of Maryland by the State, AMI
the payment of the aggregate sum and
collection for the people by State agen
cies, did not alter the character Of the
taxation. The State of Maryland was
subrogated to the rights of the individ-
ual landowner, on whom the tax was
imposed, No action of the State could
change this original relationship be-
tween the government and the individ-
ual citizen 1t is not in this case. nor
can il be successfully contended in any
case, that the same payment by one or
more persons of the levy of taxes, GOV
eminent, State, county or municipal.
would give to the persons paying their
proportion any claim To be reimbursed.
hold the contrary would at once de-
stroy the practical operation of all tax
laws "