St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-18
HOW ABOUT REFUND.
Must Income Tax Moneys For
merly Collected Be Re-
turned?
oLNEY ASKS A DECISION
, 49, {
= :. ----7 - Z
From Supreme Court When
the Case Comes Up for %
Rehearing.
CONSUL WALLERs CASE
State Department Taking Ac@
tive Steps to Secure JUS
tiee From the French. z.'ii1
0LNEY ASKS A DEcIsI0BJ
CONSUL WALLER's CASE

WASHINGTON, April 17.-Attorney
General OIney today filed in the United
States supreme courtta memorandum
for the consideration of the justices,
giving the governments view on tie
petition for a .rehearing of the income
tax question, filed by the opponents Of
the law. The government S memoran-
dunn is as follows:
Charles Pollock, appellant, vs. TIE
Farmers Loan and Trust Company ct
al, Lewis H. Hyde, appellant, vs.The
Continental Trust Company, of the
City. ofaNew " rk, ct al, on petition
for rehearing. - 81
The United States respectfully repre-
sents that if a rehearing is granted in
the above entitled case, the rehearing
should cover all of the legal and con-
stftutional questions involved, and not
merely those as to which the court are
equally divided.
First-Whether a tax on incomes gen.
orally, inclusive of rents and interests
or dividends from investments of all
kinds is, or is not a direct tax within
the meaning of the federal constitution,
as matter upon which, as an original
question, the government has really
never been heard. Its position at the
argument was that the question had
been settled by an exposition of the con-
stitution, practically conterporaneous
with it's adoption by subsequent I'M
broken line of judicial precedents; by
the concurring and repeated action of
all the departments of the government,
and by the consensus of all tax writer's
and authorities by which the subject
has heretofore been considered.
Second-The Importance. to the
government of the new views
of it's taxing power, an
nounced in the opinion of
the chief justice, can hardly be exag
gerated First-Pushed to their
logical conclusion, they practically ex-
clude from the direct operation of the
power all the real estate of the country
and all it's invested personal property.
They exclude it because if realty and
personality are taxed only by the rules
of apportionment the inevitable in
equalities resulting from such a
plan of taxation are so gross
and fragrant as to absolutely debar
any resort to it. That such inequaii-'
ties must. result is practically adj
mitted, the only suggestion in reply,
being that the power to directly tax
realty and personality was not meant.
for use as an ordinary, every day
power; that the United States was.
expected to rely for it's customary
revenues upon duties, imposts and eX7
cises; and that it was meant it should
impose direct taxes only. in extra ordiu
nary emergencies, and as a sort OF
dernier resort. Itzis ssubnfittednthati a.
construction Of thes, constitution of;
such vital Importance in itself, and
requiring in it's support an imputa5
ton to it's trainers of specific purpose,
which nothing in the text of the con-
stitution has any tendency to reveal,
cannot be too carefully considered be-
fore being finally adopted. q
Second-Though of minor con-
sequence, it is certainly relevant to
point out that if the new exposition of
the constitution referred to, is to pre-
vail, the United States has under pre-
vious income tax laws collected vast
sums of money which on every prin-
ciple of justice it ought to refund, and
which it must be assumed that con-
gress will deem itself bound to make
provision for refunding. by appropriate
legislation. Respectfully submitted.
RICHARD OLNEY,
~ Attorney General.