The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1895-03-09

VA, au unusual attendance Of spec.
,a.ors In tho supreme court OF tho
Uni,cd States to-day when tho court
convened. Mr.. Guthrie resumed his
a,,umen. for the appellants in the In.
come tax cases. He took up the caac
vhero he left. Of yesterday, discussing
the bearing OF the 9th amendment to
the constitution upon tho caaes, and
also referring to other constitutional
provisions. 10 also reviewed some
other points mado In his adircss yes.
.e,day, and among other things referred
again 10 the exemption OF educational,
charitable and church institutions, and
he stated that while counsel for tho ap.
pellants did not propose giving especial
attention to these exceptions to the law,
thew did not desire that it should be
understood that they loft them unchal.
l.nged. On the contrary, he said, they
held that the matter Of regulating such
taxes should be lett 10 the various states.
Referring to the fifth constitutional
amendment, he said Its provision that
no person should be deprived OF life,
liberty or property without due process
Of law, had been made for the protec-
ton OF the people against undue en-
croachmeuts. He contended that any
law which would impose q tax on one
class OF people and not on another was
in direct contradiction Of this amend
meut, in that the collection OF such n
,a1 irregularly and unevenly levied was
equal to the deprivation OF the first
class OF their property without due pro-
cess OF Law.
He then reurnted TO the discussion OF
the question OF taxation OF corporations
in diheren. way from which individ.
uas were taxed and said this was the
point OF sranscendent importance in the
cases reasserting that the property Of
any cooperation was the property of the
individuals composing it, when the
question was up in the senate the point
vas made, he said, by Senator Platt.
that many corporations wore composed
Of people OF limited means. It had for
centuries been the policy all over tho
world to encourage tho formation OF cor
porat,ons and this policy was one which
had ios.ered commerce because Of tho
personal immunity secured under
them.
He asserted that II Congeoss was per-
a inn IN nat
atoms as in the income tax law they
would virtually have the power to nulli-
iy the right OF states to create corpora
tions. He admitted that under the de-
cisions OF the supreme court the states
had the privilege OF imposing uneven
taxes against corporations.
Mr.. Seward then reviewed tho history
Of the phrase 'direct taxes" and ar
gued that it mus. imply more than cap
i.alizatiou, for tha. was specifically pro-
vided for and more than tax on the
land, because the plural OF tho word
was used in the constitution. 30 as
serted that in the absence OF specific ap-
plcation OF the phrase to the income
tax il Was necessary to resort TO tho
common acceptance OF the meaning OF
the words in tho country where they
originated, which was In England,
where tho income tax is' regarded aa 4
direct tax.
In response to q question BY Justice
Grav, Mr.. Seward said there had never
been .ime in tho history OF tho coun.
Try that state taxes were designated as
other than diroct taxes. Ho also re.
sponded to q question by Justice Gray
10 tho effect that ho was coutending for
the position that all taxes other than
ezcises, imports aud duties shall bc ap-
poTtioned among tho sta.es according
10 the distribution OF tho population rs
shown by the census, as Congress had
appor,ioned them three times IN his.
tory. flc asserted that an income tax
hal been levied in most OF the colonies
prior 10 the adoption Of tho conHtitu-
,oH. Tho people had then regarded 1t
rs dirce: tax.
lie explained the difference between
the two cases IRON New York aDd tho
ono arising in the District, saying that
in tho Moore cnge the effort had been to
secusc m injunction agains, the collcc-
ton ot the tax, while, in tho other Two
cases, the efforts had been made to on
JON the payment OF tax, tho first being
an action against the commissioner OF
internal revenue and tho other two
against tho 'rust companies OF which
tHn appellants wore stockholders.
Ar. Moore, hc said, was q rich man, who
possessed AZ income exceeding 100000
aye0F, ye: ne did not claim to have
any propOfly thR. could bo reached rs
zen Tor the collection of the tax.
liow can Congresa mako law com.
peI!Ing man 10 do thing when tho
Conltituti0n nays it cann0tT' asked
"ntllcc Fold, but nt tho suggestion OF
incl Justice FnlIer. that further diB-
cnsilon OF the point was unnecessary,
5ir. Whitney did not attempt to rnply.
no iact that the tax was to be collected
Wy The federal government instcad oil
bS Tho states and colonies could not
rhnNSe tho character OF tho tax.
Mr. Seward closed Just before s
O'Clock, saying hp considered IL unfor.
tuhhte that theirs wore three different
Otahchoi ol tho government, and that q
tribunal had boom proyidpd In tho all.
pfcnp court Of tho United Statos by
"hlcli snch quoltions rs tho pro8ont
canld bc nrciontrd with tho confidence
That thcy would receive tho considora.
non duo them rOgardcJa OF influence oi
poIitict, which consideration would hO
hopod IN thla care realIlt In tho breaking
io|n oi tho barrier raised in tho Spring.
ned case and giyo the country tho pro.
tcc!ion 10 which it waq omitted.
Aosiotant Attorney Gnuoral whitney
then presented the outlines of tho gov
rrnmcnt CnsC.
Mr. whitney had not concluded when
T." court nt ! O'Clock adjourned until
Monday at IL O'clock, whom, after Mr..
'llincy concludes. Ex-senator Ell.