Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-12-24
Two Cabinet Officers Differ Upon
Law Points.
PRESIDENT ACCEPTS GRESHAM'S VIEW
Louisiana Men to Oppose Repeal
Unless TheirRights Are Preserved.
THE INCOME TAX SUIT

The Secretary Of State and the Attorney
General, both lawyers of eminence, are al
variance as to the legal effect Of the one
tenth provision against German bounty
sugar. These opinions were set forth In
The Star last Saturday, and their wide di-
vergence shown. The President in this
matter seems to have taken the view OF
Secretary Gresham, namely, that the one
tenth provision of the existing law is a
violation of the most favored nation clause
of the treaty. 1t Is understood, at least,
that the bill which was introduced by Mr..
Wilson represents the desires of the Presi-
dent.
The Sugar Plnnterx' Contract.
There are difficulties however, in the way
IL the administration expects to secure the
passage OF this bill without reopening the
tariff question. The Representatives from
Louisiana and from the other states de-
clare that 1t Is no more important to legis-
late to prevent the alleged violation of the
treaty with Germany (when the Attorney
General Of the United States says it is not
a violation), than for Congress to violate
the definite contract between the United
states and the sugar growers or this coun-
try by the repeal Of the bounty law, which
is effected in this same new tariff act.
They have legal opinion that the repealed
law Is contract between the United
States and the sugar-growers, and that the
sugar planters will have a remedy against
the United States for breach of contract.
If Congressman Wilson shall press his bill
to repeal the one-tenth against the German
bounty, sugar amendments, which are ger
name, they assert, will be proposed to re-
store the bounty law, or to provide a more
specific remedy than exists under the
present law to secure damages.
The Income Tax Injunction.
The administration has been taken en-
tirely by surprise at the suit which was
filed here Saturday for an injunction to re-
strain the commissioner of internal rev.
enue from collecting the income tax. The
government authorities have no opinions
to give to this suit. for .they have not
yet sufficiently recovered from their amaze
ment to form any. AS the treasury is to
have one-half holiday today, there is no
probability that any plan will be formed
until the court shall have taken action
upon the bill for an Injunction. If the in
junction shall be granted, the Secretary Of
the Treasury will have no alternative en-
cept to answer 1t, and the issue will be
joined in the courts before the commits
sioner Of internal revenue can proceed to
make his assessments and collect the in
come tax. There can he no doubt that the
United States courts will furnish every IA
cility to bring the case to final decision at
the very earliest possible moment. The op-
poDents of the income tax have secured a
legal advantage by getting the case into
the courts before the law shall go into ef-
feet. 1t is, Of course, the object of those
who bring the suit to have the question of
the constitutionality of the act determined,
IL possible, before the first collection shall
be made. For that matter, it will be of
equal advantage to the government to
have an adjudication Of this important
question Immediately, for IL the tax can
not be legally collected the government
will not care to expose itself to the danger
of being compelled to refund payments Of
large amounts unconstitutionally collected.
Moreover, II the law is unconstitutional, it
will be necessary also for the government
to provide some means by which additional
revenue can be secured for the new tariff
law does not now supply sufficient revenue
for the current expenses of the govern
ment, and the experience of the last few
months shows that it Is not likely to do so.
A Question MIR. Carlisle Did Not
Answer.
1t Is significant In this ction that
the direct question which was asked Sec
retary Carlisle in the recent hearings be-
fore the banking and currency committee
in support Of what has been called the ad-
minstration curreI cy BILL whether the two
gold loans of an aggregate of $lOO;OOOOo0,
which have been negotiated, have been
made necessary because of a deficit in the
receipts for current expenditures, or wheth-
er the gold was secured simply to main-
tain the parity into currency, has not been
answered. 1t is a fact which has not es-
capped public attention, and which Is rather
a startling fact, that Secretary Carlisle dis
tinctly omitted to answer, If he did not
positively refuse to answer, the inquiry
whether any portion of this s1OO. 900, 900 in
gold had been used to pay the current ex-
penses Of the government? 1t is the opin-
ion of those who are the most familiar
with the operations of the Treasury De-
partment that very considerable portion
of this gold has been used to defray cur
rent expenditures. So that If the income
tax shall be declared unconstitutional it
will evidently be necessary to have addi-