New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-09
Dr.. Lyons
PERFECT
Tooth Powder
AN ELEGANT TOILET LUXURY.
Used by people of refinement
For over a quarter of n century.
AN ELEGANT TOILET LUXURY.

| a., concurrent branch OF the Governments inc
legislative. for thereby the Court wou'n 'a'' "
enforce a rule I'm respect to tsen '"a' viz
forced against the Legislature. 49,
,,s,ice Rrown-Rut suppose, Mr.. Choate' that
,.".,anos. has acted for 100 years upon the de-
cisions OF this Court. Is not 'na' '"
Observance Of the doctrine OF stare decis'S'
NJ, cboatc-T think not and propose lttie
,,,or - show that Congress has acted wrongly
! T., rosnec, ~ those decisions. and without luil
knowledge OF their effect
CONFUSION OVER THE HYLTON CASE
Recurring to the decisions OF the 'ou'' -
| often quoted Mr. Choate said much co'iiuS''i
| had been caused by the various OPINIONS al"
discussions Of the Hylton case. There an excise
tax had been laid upon the use OF the 10 car
riaees MIR HILTON owned. 1t was not direct
tax and upon that distinction most OF 'he con-
| fusion had occurred. The difference. MI. CHoa'e
said he would illustrate by the familiar dog tax
1--WE pay a tax of 81 for the privilege Oh Per
n,,,ino our dogs TO annoy our neighbors Inc
tax is laid irrespective oil thu value OF the am
nal and there is a wide range in the value Oh
| dogs \ friend Of mine owned dog "'lt"
40 600 and the dog tax was just the same DIS
that upon ten-cent cur But the asse ese -
! con,a along and finding hat he hac sluo" =,
| property in dog and a $4,000 railrodu , n.n
| procepdel
The decision in the Sprinkler case ME- o"pa a,I
| said made no distinction between tax on reI,
estate and personal property lie hau ho, :,
| into the records ~ the case. 10 see just VIVA,
| contained lie had found. he sad. tha' MI.
Springer IT. the year named dS'O) had an neon"
| of s54 sos from his services as a awyer anu NO.,
| continued Mr.. Choate. "as Is too oi'eh tne 80
win ne LAWYERS but sl6l as interest on Govern.
ment bonds That was less than one-third OF
| per cent of the whole amount anu II VIZ ~
| vwonder said Mr. Choate that Springer as
,,,eor arguing his own case. failed - make a
noint Of IT, lie did not bring the question III
his bill OF sptions before the supp cie ~
| -, tho United States for examination anu "e-
| c!sion.
PECULIAR POLITICAL MORALITY
.Pu, hc said. Mr.. Springer cannot give away
,h, ~,,h,. - all other American citizens In future
cases" The only decision in that case was tnat
hts income under the pcadings and exceptions
| shown was a subject OF excise tax. The AttoF-
| ney-Ceneral was greatly concerned ovY the con-
sequences that would follow reversal OF me
Springer rule. There was no Springer rul" III 'he
| nret place said Mr. Choaie: ana II therr "S'r'
| What kind OF political morality was involved N
| the suggestion Of the Arorney-Generai tna'' pc
| cause the Government had In the past Hlesaliy
| collected taxes II must be permitted 70 g on III
| The future Illegally collecting other taxes! But
| vour honOrs need have no fear on that sc1'c,
The former income tax vas pai wiilins,y, anu J,
| any Of them or their descendants shou!d ueHdH'
lts return they would he the subjects oi seneTai
| shame and general contempt And. furtheF' mere
| ~ nothing IN the history or aitiuie 81 inc 90
eminent 10 warrant the belief That II an VINO Ha'
MD tho tax should altogether demand rs return,
| they would ever get dollar OF II BACK 3D. '"a'
| suggestion can be safely dismissed
Nj Ch0at. turned - the points made Win To
sn.r ~ lnrk Z uniformity and ot Illegal and IN.
| lust exceptions. The former. he SAID ne "ouI'
| leave upon the previous arguineh, ti"uc -. .to
| case and that - forcibly presented by MY Euth-
| RE time would not permit him TO 20 into IL.
chief Justice Fuller--There need be no restraint
felt In REGARD 20 time. Mr. choa,e
| Mr. Ch0atc-I do not feel inclined 70 TAX tnf
generosity and patience Of your honors beyond the
| pcr.ol originally fixed. which Will expire al 2
| o'clock.
UNJUST EXEMPTIONS.
| The unjust character % the exceptions made in
the law. especially Of mutual insurance companies
Mr.. Choatc said. would best be shown by con-
crete statement II facts with master hand ne
then sketchel With bold strokes the corporations
exempted. one - which has accumulated sur
plus of y2Of 900 0oo And that. the Court ~ asked
| TO say. is reasonable exercise OF legislative
| power.
MIR. Justice shlras inquired II counsel contcnied
! that Congress was limited In the eNercis" OF lis
discretion II. respect ~ taxation OF cofpornuy"s
| Mr. Choatc answered that Congress had the
right 10 tax the business OF any corporation, but
| II was not within It's power. "a was attempted 10
be done here. TO tax one corporation ana eNeinp'
| another corporation doing exactly M same bISi-
ness In the same way-tne only difference being
that in one case the business vas conducted FOR
the benefit ~ tho ftOCknOlicrS. ana III the "'i.'i
| for the benefit Of the policy holders
The exception Of incomes Of $4,000 and less
J from the operation ~ the law Mr.. Choate SAID,
was even less defensble excusable than thht IN
| relation to mutual insurance companies. It's oh
| Jet was to make the law applicable only u d
| very small proportion ~ the people. Largely re-,
siding IN few Of the states the Ola seaonnra
| States. who gave up so much In the compromise
that resulted In the adoption OF the Constitution
| \ MAHGLED AND INITIATED CORPSE.
| In closing. Mr.. Choate said:
| Now have a few minutes more to speak upon
| tn, other question left open by the Court. namely
| let me state II exactly as II is-whctfer the IN
| roads made upoa the law by the decision already
made. and that which We hope Will be- made,
| constitute an lnvadation OF the whole act
/ think. II the Court Please that there Il no DOUBT
| about what the question intended 20 be submit
| ted there ia. Does II follow because the act has
| been left I'm its present mangcd ana mutilhted
| condition II should DE buried? submit that II
| does necessarily follow that that argument must
| be answered IN the affirmative. This mangled
and mutilatcd corpse has to- long remained un-
| buried In its present condition II shocks the
| acnsbiiltics OF the entire people OF the United
| States
Now. what Is the rule? The rule has been
| stated In many. many ways. In many. many
| cascs. but prefer. as | always do prefer when
| can get the aid OF such jurist as chief Justice
| SHAY. to bring him to my rescue But 1t has
| meyer been stated In any better or clearer way
| than by that great jurist In the case Of Warren
| w. Charleston. Gray. ~. 1t is there stated by
| him that although parts OF an act are unconsti-
| tutonal. 'Othcr parts OF the same act may not
| be obnoxious TO the same objection, and there
| fore, have the full force OF law. in the same
| manner as II these several enactmenis had been
| made by different statutes. But this must be
| taken with this limitation. that the parts so held
| respectively constitutional and unconstitutional
| must be wholly independent OF each other. But
| II they are mutually connected with and de-
pendent on each other. as considerations or COM
| pensations for each other. as 10 warrant u belief
| that the Legislature Intended them as a whole,
| and that. II all could not be carried into effect
| the Legislature would not pass the residue indie
| pendently, and some parts are unconstitutional,
| all the provisions which are thus dependent con-
| ditional or connected. must fall with them"
| II is also elsewhere stated by this Court that
| unless the Court see II was the intention Of
| Congress to pass the law as II Is left. shorn or
| tho mart found TO be unconstitutional the whole
| mnsi fall What has happened here2 What L.