The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-03-07
FIGHTING THE INCOME TAX.
THE ARGUMENTS IN THE SUPREME
COURT TO BEGIN TO-DAY.

The Three Cases Vow Before the
Judges 10 BE Consolidated for n
simultaneous Presentation - The
Lawyers ia BE Allowed Five Hours
on Each side for the Delivery of
Their Arguments-The Time May
he Extended.
washington, Marcel 6.-Arrangements
were made last month in the supreme
court Of the United States for argument
on the income tax cases.
At the opening Of the court to-day Mr..
Attorney General Olney said there were
three cases relating TO the income tax
now before the court. two of them. the
New York cases, presenting idenucally
the same question and based upon the
same records; the third originated in the
District Of Columbia and was the only
one in which the government was direct
ly interested. That was a suit, he said.
for an injunction to restrain the Com
missioner of Internal Revenue from pro-
ceeding 10 carry out the law. The Attor-
rey General asked that the government
Two cases, however, and he suggested that
1hey be all consolidated. and whatever
time was deemed reasonable for their ar
gument might be given to the counsel.
Chief Justice Fuller asked if the counsel
on the other side had anything to sug-
gest in the matter, and Mr.. shellabarger
Of this city responded that his firm ap-
peared for Mr.. Moore, in the suit against
Commissioner Miller. He said he was la
boring under some embarrassment from
the fact that it had been arranged that
ex-senator Edmunds. who was associated
with them, should make the oral argu-
ment in behalf of their client, but that
he had been and still was sick in bed
with grip. He had received a telegram
from Mr.. Edmunds yesterday saying that
he expected TO be able to appear to-mor-
row and make the argument if required.
Mr. Shelabarger said that he had no OBJ
lection to the consolidation of the cases.
if it did not otherwise abbreviate the time
to which they would be entitled.
The chief justice said that the purpose
of consolidation would be for a hearing
as one case.
J. C. Carter, who appears for the Con-
tinental Trust Company, In support of the
law observed that the ordinary rules
governing the time for argument seemed
10 be inadequate.
The chief justice inquired how much time
counsel thought they should have. His
idea was to take the three cases to-
gether and asked II one hour in addition
would be enough to satisfy counsel.
c. A. Seward, who representa- the stock
holders of the New York Trust Company
and is opposed to the law, said that he
could speak for only two of the cases. in
which there were five counsel engaged
and he hoped that ample time would be
given.
After consulting with his associates on
the bench, the chief justice announced
that they had decided to allot ten hours
to counsel. five on each side, the division
OF which they might adjust among them
selves. If it is developed that this time
was insufficient, it would be enlarged.
The government, he stated, would be per-
mitted to be heard, and three counsel
on a side would be permitted to speak.
Inc usual rule giving the opening and
closing to the appellant, he said, would
be observed, but the court desired that
put one counsel for the appellants should
be heard in closing; that is that their
speeches would be sandwiched in among
the speeches for the appellees.
The counsel have not arranged among
themselves how the division of time shall
be made, but it is probable that ex-Sen-
ator Edmunds, Joseph H. Choate and Mr.
Seward will speak for the appellants in
opposition to the law, and the Attorney
General and Mr.. Carter for the appeIlees.
in favor of the law.
The argument win probably begin to-
morrow.