The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-15
APPELLANTS ANXIOUS.
Judge JackSOn'S Illness Likely
to Delay Action Until
Next Fall.
RULES ON PETITION CASES.
The Procedure Has Been to Grant
the Request to a Member Of
the Court Only.

WASHINGTON, D. c., April 14.-The
determination of the appellants in the
income-tax case to secure a rehearing be-
fore full bench of the United States Su-
preme Court on the points on which the
court divided has caused a renewal of in
terest in the question of Justice Jackson S
health and the possibility of his return to
the bench at an early day. Late advices
from Judge Jackson's home at Nashville
is that he is constantly improving, and
that, barring a very annoying cough, his
physical condition is fairly good. 1t is
also stated from the same source that he
expects to be able to resume his duties as
member of the court at the beginning of
the October term. There remains little
more than month of the present term,
and it is suggested that he may not return
for this brief period.
In view of this fact there can be no posi-
bility of another argument in the case be-
fore next fall or winter. This is equally
true if Justice Jackson should decide to
retire, permanently from the bench, which,
it is understood, he has no thought of do
ing. In that contingency, howev er, the
bench cloud not be filed before the assem-
bling of Congress. No instance is known
of where man nominated for the Supreme
Bench has taken his seat before he was
confirmed by the Senate. Congress will
not convene until next December, and
under no circumstances would the Senate
be likely to pass upon confirmation OF
this magnitude until after their Christmas
holidays. Action might, indeed, be post
poned much longer, and it possibly would
be if the predictions of the nominee
should be opposed to the income tax, as
the Senate is committed to the law. 1t is
also suggested that Justice who had not
participated in the first hearing might feel a
delicacy in sitting when the case was under
consideration the second time.
1t is quite possible that the petition for a
rehea1ing may not be granted. The court s
rule of procedure in such cases is only to
grant such petitions upon the request of a
member of the court who has voted in op-
position to the wishes of the petitioner.
Senator Chandler of New Hampshire
was asked to-day for his opinion as to the
suggestion of Assistant Acknowledgement
Whitney that the constitution might be so
amended as to provide for the imposition
of direct taxes, and replied:
To amend the constitution it is necessary to
secure two-thirds vote of Congress and then
to have the amendment ratified by the State
Legislatures. think it would be impracticable
to do that. There never has been any amend
ment to the constitution except of a negative
character, none providing for modes of govern
ment, and with the increasing members in
both houses of Congress and the growth of the
Union States it becomes more and more diff
cult to secure a change Furthermore, l do
not think an amendment of the constitution is
needed to secure valid income tax law. 1t
can be had by apportloning the tax among the
States in proportion to population, and 1 am
inclined to think that since the decision of the
Supreme Court there will be an effort in that
direction at the next session.