The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-05-07

| that the Federal Government was limit
| cd in the power 20 lay direct taxes 10
capitation tax. and a tax directly on land.
1--WE are told" said he. that although
the conclusion might be different II the
question were a new one. the court Is
precluded from considering the merits OF
a constitutional question or guaranty py
the expressions in this case. such an
argument comedies the possibility or ori-
ginal error.
1T is never TOO late to adopt and de-
clare the truth as 10 the Constitution
Under such circumstances as are here
presented the doctrine OF stare declsis
should not be applied
Much was said upon the prior argu-
ment I'm regard 10 the awful responsibiii-
IS which the court would assume IN de-
claring "a act Of Congress unconstitu-
tional. and the clamor that II might IN
cite. said Mr.. Guthrie.
1t might not. Therefore, b. amiss TO Oh
serve that while We have been contest
ing scme OF the provisions of the wilson
tariff bill on the ground of their uncon-
stitbticnality. the Department Of Justice
has been earnestly and strenuously carry
ing on "A contest On precisely me same
ground against certain sections cf the
Mckinley tariff hNl. This has been done
with so much ability and success ihat
the executive branch of the Government
has procured a Judgment anHuliiHg as un-
constitutional and void ne sugar bounty
sections of that act. Therefore. ~ should
not. il seems 10 us, excite comment ana
much less criticism. that private citizens
in protection Of their own rights nave
followed this example. I'm that same
case ureccdtnts We're cited and the doc
tr,no Of practical Interpretation al
varcod bur the Government succeeded
I'm cloarina all this away and inducing
the court 10 return TO what 10 insisted
was precedent or no precedent the only
safe guide. the truth OF the Consutu-
tion.
The LAW As A WHOLLY.
Mr.. Guthrie presented the views set
forth at some length in the hriei upon
the contention that It, was clearly the
intention OF Congress 20 have the ia"
act as whole. and that the provisions
which are unlucstiOnahly void invaliiate
the whole act I'm order 10 preserve the
provisions now remaining the court must
strike out words actually used. such as
rents. income and product OF land. Be
fore the court can thus attempt 20 legis-
! late it must be clearly satisfied that Con-
gress would have passed the act in this
mutilatcd form. How can the court holl
that 10 can assume that Congress would
have passed the act without the objcc-
tOnahle and unconstitutional feature
when the debates show conclusively that
! Congress deemed these unconstitutional
provisions an integral and inseparable
portion of its general .heme2
Counsel took The ground that IL was
Impossible for the court 70 remodel the
act and say that Congress would have
passed the act without the provisions
which n has in terms made an integral
part For the court to do this would be
10 make a new law the court would be
legislatng and making "a law. not de-
claring or Interpreting it This cOuton-
tion was enforced by many citations from
decisions"
Mr.. Guthrie then contendcd. as he ala
upon the previous argument that tho
act ought 10 Doe declared void because
Of its inequalities. and fe again urged the
principal grounds then discussed.
AS TO REfUNDNG COLLECTED TAxEL
I'm reply to the statement of the At
| tOrncy-fcneral ON the application for
rohearing. that If this 'uew exposition OF
the Constitution" is 10 prevail the United
States ought 90 refund the sums c0l-
lccted under the previous jueome-taN
law, Mr. Guthrie said. "lf the sugge=-
ton is that you close your eyes TO the
truth and refuse 10 interpret the Con-
stimt0n c0nformably 10 The intention of
the trainers and the people who adopted
10. because it may involve the Govern
ment in a loss OF money. then We say that
the suggestion is irrelevant. and that 10
ought not TO have been made and that
A. lacks every element of political mOrali-
ty There Is no proprlety on the part
of the executive branch OF the Govern
mont I'm telling this court that 30 should
be affected one way or the other by the
fact that its decisions may compel the
rcflnding Of vast sums OF money un-
lawfully collected
lie denied. however. that there would
be any attempt tO refund this income TAX
or tho cotton tax. II would be opposed
% every principle of civil right 10 holn
these sacrifices. willingly submitted 20
In time of war as precedents for unlaw-
ful exactions in time of peace. Ihat
taxation submitted 10 hy pafriotc peo-
nle in time Of war should furnish no
pfoCedent has been fhe doctrine Of Eng
lish constitutional rights Tor over SIX
hundred years. lt was declared in the
confirmation charter OF Edward The First.
in 1s,7 seventy years after the Magma
charter and tho declaration OF principle
tfaf tho exiecucics OF war should not
create prccedents was reiterated by Chief
Justice Chase.
with the quotation of the language Mr..
Guthrie closed. having spoken two hours
and ten minutes.
MR.. WHITNEY ~ SUPPORT OF rHE law
Tie was followed by Assistant Attorney
General T.. b. Whitney. in support Of the
law. After an apology 90 the court Tor
the want of proper presentation or the
case becauso OF the lack of necessary
time Mr.. Whitney said the Government
Uouif suggest nothing further on me
subject Of tax upon state and municipal
hands than had been set forth in the
original argument The ruling OF the
eourf as 10 the subject OF State munich
nal bonds Mr.. Whitney said. did not. in
me oniuion OF the Governments counsel
a0eri the other points involved as 20 the
rnifna upon the examination OF the IN
comes from rents from the operations or
the law. Their position. be said. was same
What different. They believed that on that
rofn. they would Doe able 10 appeal 10
every Justice upon like grounds, when
,,se fs sent back 20 court for re-hcaring,
v,hen rev evidence has been discovered
In the original hearing the GOvrnmcnt
had not felt 10 necessary 10 present any
of the historical evidence relating 10
the question OF direct taxes bur had been
confent inasmuch as the cOmplainants
bod NOT IN bills nor In their briefs inii-
Gated their intention OF cOntesting the
noinf 10 rest upon the adjudications OF
The court I'm previous cases. down 10,
and including the Springer case. Now
mat the Government was about 10 pre-
sent The historical evidence, Mr.. Whitney
claimed that IL would present 10 the court !
an entirely new view OF the question or |