The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-03-16

lief He first spoke Of the action OF
congress in endeavoring to take away
from the courts the right to appeal for
protection as was the case in the income
tax law. He did not think the time had
come when there should be no longer an
appeal to the courts from the acts of
congress. 1t was beyond the function
of congress to pass an act that would
strip the courts of their rights. and this
was just as true TO the rights Of citi-
zens as to those of the courts.
He referred to the provision that the
taxpayer was required to make his re-
turns to deputy collectors. He said
the deputy was not recognized as a le-
Ultimate officer under the constitution.
Il do not. however" he said, "mean to
dwell on that, but merely refer to it in
passing as one of the points of vice
which bloomed in the garden of the last
congress" He criticised many other
features of the law providing for the
collection of taxes, pointed out that it
left no room for resort or appeal to the
courts. but left to revenue officers the
adjustment. who, he said, were not
only final Judges but inquistors as we'll.
Mr.. Edmunds then reviewed the case
heretofore decided, which has been re-
ferred to by previous argument, and
discussed the points involved at length.
He was referring to the Hilton case,
when Chief Justice Fuller called his
attention to the fact that Hilton had an
unusual number Of carriages. 1875, as he
remembers. Unusual in numbers,
Mr.. Edmunds asserted, but he pos
sessed them as many persons possess
virtue and grace" He asked the court
to ovorrule it's former decision on the
income tax, as given in the Springer
, case He argued that the past congress
had overstepped the limits of the CON
stitution in imposing this tax, because
! he said it was short of money. He ar
gued that under the law % per cent. Of
| the tax would be paid by per cent. Of
/ taxable voters. ut becomes" said he
IAN interesting subject of speculation
as to how long the government can last
under a system which allows those
who pay nothing to tax their fellow
citizens
Justice Harlan asked Mr.. Edmunds if
he had formulated a definition of the
difference between a direct and indirect
tax, and he replied he had He there
upon proceeded to give it, saying a di-
rect tax was tax on any kind Of prop
erty and upon persons, not in respect
to property in existence, acquired or to
be acquired while an indirect tax in
cluded all the rest as referred to in the
constitution under the head of duties
imports and excuses, which would be
heavy or light on each person, depend
ing upon his will
do you not" asked Justice Brown
regard a tax that is paid by a person
himself as a direct taxi" yes"
Asked by Justice Shiras to give a def
milton of excise, he quoted Jacobs anC
Johnson, where the latter says it is 3
hateful tax collected by wretches.
Justice Harlan suggested that the
definition would meet his (Mr. Ed
munds) idea of the income tax, t
which Mr.. Edmunds replied that it die
in part. Mr. Edmunds closed with
plea for equality in taxation. He de
clared it to be the mission of the su
preme court. the tribunal of last resort
to correct such mistakes. and made
last appeal for return to the princi
pies of equality and uniform justice
even if in doing so it became necessar,
for it to reverse a former decision.