Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-09-02
MONDAY EVENING. SEPT. 2, 1926.
TIE PHILADELPHIA Press has q cor
respondent at New York who writes

f6SpOuuCou cu 4NoW
yer the signature of HOLLAND" Hard
ly any correspondent is superior to
him in cleverness, industry and an In
telligent review of the correct news of
the day. But he has nevertheless fallen
of late into one, if not two extraordi-
nary errors. Speaking of Mr.. VIM. l..
Wilson, now Postmaster General. ne
avs that his old ante bellum preceptor,
DIR. Sampson, of the Columbia Univer-
sity, in Washington, D. O., in lecturing
to his class on political questions used
to analyze the arguments of Sam
Houston in favor of secession, but that
Mr.. Wilson was not persuaded by
the DOCTORS arguments. DR.. Sampson
was doubtless a professor of fair ability
but he could not possibly have analysed
and refuted Sam Houston's arguments
in favor of secession, and for this very
good and sufficient reason; namely,
that Sam Houston never made any ar
gument on that side of the question.
Houston was, during his somewhat
brief congressional career, no seces'
s%ionist, but a very positive and uncom-
promising adherent of the opposite
theory of the government. He antago-
nized Mr.. Calhoun and the State-rights
men somewhat bitterly. But he was
never regarded as an authority or q
leader on either side of the question,
nor did he aver make, so far as is
known, anything that could be called a
constitutional argument. He was not
a LAWYER or a scholar or q thinker. He
had probably never read of Jefferson
or. Madison or Calhoun on the n
hand, or Webster or Story on the other.
He was a man of action and an out
door man fond of adventure at one
time, the lucky, rather than the skillful
hero of the battle of San Jacinto, with
a fair quantity of courage, tact and re-
source. The fact that Mr.. Wilson diff.
ftred with his preceptor on the ques.
ton of the powers of the government is
probably true and is supported by Mr..
Wilson's honorable career as q soldier
of the Confederate army. He was true
to his State and people i'll that supreme
hour of trial and generous emotion
aud self sacrifice. With a sincere
respect for this record and for Mr.. Will
son, we find it hard to believe the sec
ond statement of Holland; namely,
that in a late conversation with d..
Sampson he spoke earnestly against the
income lax feature of the tariff bill Of
August, 1894, declaring that he he'd
voted against it in committee-irst be-
cause he thought the proposed tax was
repugnant to every democratic princi-
pie. and secondly he opposed it because
he believed the tax as then formulated
in the bill was unconstitutional. To any
one familiar with MI. Wilson's course
on the tariff bill, his votes and speech
es, all this is absolutely incredible. 1t
is the very first statement that we have
seer in any quarter that Mr.. Wilson
voted against the income tax in
his committee. 1t is very true
that in reporting the tariff bill to the
House of Representatives he did not
also report the income tax feature, but
this proves nothing; for he did not re-
port the increased whisky tax, the tax
on playing cards and other internal
revenue provisions of the present law.
The labor of preparing a tariff bill in a
limited time was q sufficiently arduous
task-almost herculean in fact-and the
portion of the bill relating to internal
revenue taxation was turned over to MI.
McMillin, of Tennessee, an older mem
Der of the committee than Mr.. Wilson,
and also one of the most popular and
distinguished members of the House.
This portion of the bill was so well
handled and SO strong that it went
through the House by a very large ma
iority. MI. McMillin's internal revenue
amendment, including the income tax
feature, passed by 1872 to 4S, Mr..
Wilson voting aye, and subsequently
voting for the whole bill as it passed
the House. If he had been opposed to
the income tax as undsmocratic and
unconstitutional, and had voted against
it in committee, as stated, how is it
that there was no whisper of such a
fact in the press or in the debates?
The republican members of the commit
tee would have known it and drawn
attention to the fact. More than this,
Mr.. Wilson was man enough surely to
oppose what he deemed demonstrations
al and u~ndemocratic. Not in that whole
debate did he ever uttera word against
the income tax feature of the bill. Bs
endeavored to have the Senate bill
amended; he went so far in his OPPOSE
ton to the Senate changes in his bill
that many thought he put the whole
measure in jeopardy; he read with ap-
proval Mr.. Cleveland's indictment of