The sun., 1895-05-09

be done Indirectly. The issue could not be
.evaded by showing the time back year and
rscept. ''''' "'' ''''' '"' = '''' '''''. - 40
.Another suggestion or areu@as,n, a,, made by the
be assessed by apporti9nment without resulting
had already decided, that inequality was agrccd
upon as part OF the compact ON which the
Again, the Attorney General contended that
this construction OF the Constitution. II main.
tsinsd would @ seriously impair p the resources and
Figures will not lie." II had been said, re:
Known that they % would S convey entirely S dS SeFcnt @
Heaninss according record as they might be handled; died;
that sa M Gnoas Spf
figures which demonstrated the unsoundness OF
eitizens" that document said. cannot be- AZ.
fected by exaggeration Of the Importance to the
only previous income tax known in the coun.
try,s history arose from the necessities OF the
puted that the q Government wei had expended for
war purposes more than S4,o0O, 900. yet
This shows how insIrnificant 2 part that tax
played In supplying the country's reaareWvspn., vps,
saved the country was its high financial credit
and the patriotic attachment of its citizens to
Constitution. Those resources, it is earnestly
submitted. will be most surely preserved by
not by efforts to .frltter away the bulwarks OF
private rights and private property. which were
established thereby as conditions OF the coun-
And finally the Attorney General declared
were shirking the payment Of their just proper
ton OF ,hs e1nendi,nr.' of tho c, Go,ernmesnt ,sn
did not appear here as advocate for these classes
assertion was unforndcd. In the time or stress
and war, when young men gave OF their blood
freely and generously of their substance to sus-
tain the Government and provide the means
whereby the conflict was carried forward to a
MIR. Choate then atidre ,sed himself directly to
the discussion OF the matters left in dispute by
the decision Of ~ the , court in r the lgh, S Of the
10 the tax on personal property, and his conten-
ton ih the f1rpus 81
estate, and that q tax ON the income derived
And IN this Hps position he %as aided By the
frank nvowal OF the Attorney.oeneral that 1t
% h so M GhoaS %h auoes the the
decision Of the court OF April to sustain his
only to dresi tax levied and Collected BY the
rule Of - cour.. sr,.d TIM,
Mr. CIoaie rcspondsd e:H" that /, did not apply to
and o Ie ii but it did i'd Apply
to all personal prcper,y, Sndsr general assess,
a taI on the use OF the property.
To @ further her question by Justice Harlan RI m, Mr.
ing institutions, for instance because that was
a business. He wished, he said. that he could
principle that in cases where the Congress has
% to & is nSh ,b, in bsr hat
mittcd to Congress to tax. but it's nction is finn
tied to certain tain method. any deviation from
against the taxation OF personal property except
by the rule OF npportionment being conceded. it
come derived tkereiro '''','>'~''
Turning then to the decisions Of the court.
Mr.. Choatc referred TO the doctrine OF stare
decisis To observe this doctrine without modi-
iication. he said would raise the judiciary above
legislative, for thereby the court would fail to
enforce rule in respeet to itself that it en-
Congress has acted for loo years upon the de-
observance OF the doctrine Of stare decisis,
,Mr. M. Choate-I think not; and | propose
out full knowledge OF their effect:
often quoted. Mr.. Choq,e said much confusion
had been caused by the various opinions and
riaees Mr.. Hylton owned. Il was not a direct
fusion hod occurred. The difference. ME, Choato
d he oqS BY the ans dog
The tax hs laid Of the value Of the
of dogs. A friend Of mine owned a dog worth
$4,000. and the dog tax was Just the same as
came along. and. finding that he had 81 900 Of
n aoS S
The decision In the Springer case. Mr.. Choatee
said made no dStnG'rn retween tax tax, on reaI
into the records o. 1 the lease case to see jus, what 1T
in III Tie n"a e ssa hn anas an n
come Of s54, sos from hi. services as a LAWYER:
%sh % Sa is as
on Government bonds.'' That was less than one
Son%s or i sHt Whole M S"
tG make SSn a. m +. hI no br
before
Supreme Court Of the United states for exami-
'i But" '''i' he "H said. Mr.. Springer cannot give
away the rights Of al Other Amsrican ri Git1sns
case was that his income under the pieadings
and exGcntions shown: was subject OF excise
ta' i Sqsf follow H"
reversal OF the" Springer rule There was
S s fs RRnsSe RnS f l@S po
cal morality J., was ,nv involved in the spg-
ILLEGALLY collected Iaxe. il must be
n" no fear on that, score. The former income ] W tax
descendnnts should demand its return they
would, would be eth. the subject. . Of general shame and
ment to warrant the belief that II all who had
paid the tax ,roG Should "lSgsthsr demand It's re-
No: that suggestion can be safely dismissed,
respect Of lack Of a"i.Srmsv and of s Illegal a and
j,,,S unjust ,as exceptions The former. he said he
n the case, and that so forciby presented by
into It.
Chief Justice Fuller-.There need bo no re-
IN r9Sera &c to .s % tho
generosity and patience of your Honors beyond
the period originally fixed. which will expire at
2 O'Clock.
~ understand from the announcement of the
court that some of your Honors hesitating
about declaring the exemption Of mutual in:
Burance companies lacking In uniformity, and
therefore void in law. The concrete argu-
ment will best enforce our opinion on that
subject. shall take single instance
of a mutual insurance company. named from
the mere nature of its business In respect to
which the record shows that by the met h0ds OF
business in which it has been engaged for the
last twenty five or thirty year. it has accuInu-
lated S204 900, 900. invested in every possible
form OF property and securities, all exempt by