Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1895-01-24

what is Commended by Those Who At
tack the Law.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16.-Argument
was continued to-day before Judge Hag-
ner, in Equity Court No. 9, on the de-
murrer to the application filed by John
g. Moore of New York, for an injunc-
ton to prevent the collection of the in
come tax. Mr.. Jere M. Wilson, for Mr..
Moore, said in beginning that it was
always with the greatest reluctance that
the United States Supreme Court pro-
nounces an act of Congress unconstitu-
tional, but there are some cases where it
has done so. An unconstitutional law
was no law at all, and could not be
executed by any officer OF the govern
ment. 1t was startling proposition
that a void act could be executed to the
detriment of a citizen, and it would be
q remarkable and startling thing that
there were no powers in the courts to
stop an officer from executing an uncon-
stitutional law.
1t was equally startling, said Mr.. Will
son, that Congress could make law,
and then turn about and say that, not
withstandlng the act was unconsti-
tutional, the courts shall not act upon
it. In opposition to the proposition
that Federal officers, as heads of de-
partments, could not be proceeded
against in mandamus or injunction
suits, Mr.. Wilson maintained that the law
applied only to the President. If an Off
Ger was proceeding under an unconsti-
tutional law he might be restrained by
the court, for he had no semblance of
authority for his actions.
IF UNCONSTITUTIONAL 1T IS NO LAW AT
ALL.
If the law was unconstitutional, CON
tinued Mr.. Wilson, it was no law at all
and any act by an officer doing what
the law ordered was an unlawful act
and punishable by the court.
Continuing, Mr.. Wilson maintained
that if an officer was charged with the
commission of q ministerial and particu-
lar act there was nothing left to his own
discretion, and he was liable to an
action of mandamus, when he would
not be liable to the event of acts
optional with himself.
Speaking of the retrospective features
of the Income Tax law, Mr.. Wilson said
it was q most phenomenal and obnox.
ious statute in that it taxed incomes
reaching back two years. He dilated
on some of the peculiarities of the law
in its dual taxing features, where the ne
earnings of a company were taxed anG
subsequently the dividends of stock
holder in the isame company wert
levied on in those cases where they wen
to aggregate an income of more thar
$4,000 per year.
ANOTHER POPULARITY.
Another popularity of the law, h,
said, could be shown by an example
the case of foreign student, for instance
who was pursuing his studies at al
American university. In the event tina
the student had an income, deriveC
wholly or in. part from foreign o
domestic Investments, all of that incom
in excess of $4,000 per annum was sub
ject to tax of 2 per cent With refer
ence to the question as to the uniformit
of the tax when it picked out only me
with incomes exceeding $4,000, MI
Wilson said that the law sought to pre-
vent thrift, enterprise and energy b
taxing them. 1t was this thrift: and eli
terprise that had made our country.
was most dangerous idea that Congres
should stop the ambition of men to max
money by their own energies. The la1
was discrimination of the class Chal
acter, and was fraught with danger I
the people OF this country. When it s
Disseminated it was anything but un
form, and contrary to the Constitution
In conclusion, Mr.. Wilson argued tn,
the various provisions of the act wer
inseparable, and il any section Of it.
the dual feature, the lack of uniformit
or the alien clause of the act-are vol
it tainted the whole act and rendered
all unconstitutional.
ONE OF THOSE OBLIGED TO PAY.
Mr.. Edward b. Whitney, Assistai
United States Attorney General, in r
plying to Mr.. Wilson, in behalf of ii
government, said that it was proper tn
those who were favored with incom
in excess Of $4,000 should consent
give small tax on them, and though
personally was caught by the act, to
slight extent, yet he felt it proper tn
he should bear it. lie cited past DEF
sions of the Supreme Court affirming Il
constitutionality Of former incor
taxes, which, as he said yesterday, we
surely more obnoxious than the Ii
under consideration. lie saw no reas
why an alien residing in the Unit
States should not come under the Ia
guage of the act. He thought that I
law did not necessarily bear on
whole income, but simply that port
that came under the protection OF I
United States government.
Mr.. Whitney held, contrary to \
Wilson's argument, that an unconsti
eional clause in bill did not make
act void, and he referred to number
gases in support of the proposition Il
had been decided by the supreme Cou
The judiciary Of the United States l
Always held that questions of taXat
must always be raised by law, and Il
Congress had the power TO appo
judiciary committees especially to tt
cogni2ance of question of tax coli
ton.