The herald., 1895-05-07
ormer income tax laws, Mr.. Guthrie


"The people Of the United States gladly
paid the income tax to defray the expen-
ses OF the war, and would make similar
sacrifices today if it were necessary. Con-
gress has not returned the cotton tax, al
though it was clearly sectional, partial
and unfair. Has it ever been advanced
as principle of justice and morality
that if you decide certain Interpretation
OF the customs laws has been erroneous,
every man who had paid without protest
is entitled to have his duties refunded?"
Mr.. Guthrie concluded at 3 clock and
was followed by Assistant Attorney Gen.
eral Whitney on behalf of the govern
ment. Whitney complained of the brief
time given for preparing for the rehear-
ing. He said the government would not
again present any argument on the ques-
tion OF municipal bonds. He did not
suppose any tax law had ever been en-
acted which made express ment ion of all
possible exemptions. If such require
ment were to be made, there would be
very few valid laws.
AS to the question of exemptions of
rentals from real estate, that was differ
ent. The government had hopes this
question would be so presented as to OBJ
tam reversal OF the former opinion. He
contended that the bills in the case asked
tor no special relief in case of rentals
He announced the historical and delin-
tive argument would be handed to the
court in the shape of brief. Mr. Whit
ney said the appellants relied pri ncipally
upon the system of economies of John
Ann H., Oh,
istence at the time the constitution was
adopted, and he contended the dstinc-
tions between direct and indirect taxes
were so abstruse that it was not poss ible
to incorporate it in written constitutions.
Mr. Whitney, in crlticising the opposl-
ton for going so far back into history for
precedents, said he had rot intended to
go back further than 1859, but as the ap-
pellants had gone to 11o0, he would him
self give some precedents of that date.
Cant you," asked the chief Justice,
in tone which appeared to contain
spirit of banter, go back further than
that?'
II might" replied Mr.. Whitney. but
| should not tax the patience of the court
to that extent but for the precedent of
much learned friends on the other side.'
He said he would agree to stop short of
11S0 if Mr.. Choate would, whereupon Mr..
Choate assured Mr.. Whitney and the court
that he would stop several centuries short
of that date.
Mr.. Whitney referred at some length to
the distinctions between the words tax
and duty in English legislation. He said
this distinction had been very sharp.
and the word tax had been applied only
where the word duty could not be made
to cover the case.
eff" he said, 'the trainers OF the con-
stitution were acquainted with Black
stone, they were familiar with the Eng
lish classification.
A popularity OF the English system
since 1869 was that everything called
tax was laid by the rule OF aprortion-
ment, whereas everything called duty
was laid by the rule of uniformity. The
thorough understanding of this principle
by the Democrats of the convention ex.
planned the apparent lack of interest in
the discussion of the distinction in these
matters. The important question with
them appeared to be that of the proper
distribution of taxes to be made accord
ing to the apportonment. He contended
that the direct taxes were traceable to the
Englis land tax, and it was impossible
to levy such Il tax except by apportion-
ment. The system of appor5ionment
among countries was the same in this
country in the early days as in England.
At this point Mr.. Whitney was inter-
rupted by the adj ournment of the court
for the day.