The herald., 1895-05-08

every day use, but is TO be applied only
in extraordinary emergencies. What is
the value of this suggestion? Lcgs ly
speaking. nothing. of course.
II will not prolong the oral discussion.
There are important questions OF course,
to which | have not spoken. but they were
either urged fully at the former hearing
or have been completely covered at the
present time by the able and learned ar
gument OF my associate. | leave the case
to the court. therefore, at this point feel
ing sure of this at least. that If any con-
sideraton which could help save the gov
ernment the integrity Of one Of its most
important powers has failed to be devel-
oped. the failure cannot be attributed to
any want of appreciation of the case. nor
any intention not to give it the most
careful attention and study"
Mr.. Olney concluded at $40 and was
Immediately followed BY Mr.. Choate VINO
began the concluding argument for the
appellants in the case. Mr.. Choate's man
ner of introducing his remarks was strik
ingly peculiar. He began as If in the
middle of a sentence, or rs if he intended
to complete sentence begun and unfin-
ished by either Mr.. Olney or Mr.. Whit
ney. .r
But, said he, 'if the court please.
we are in court of law and the court of
constitution. and not engaged in mas
querading performance. Nor are we a
political assembly. as Mr.. Whitney
seemed to think. in whose presence his
chief (Mr. Oiney) might be proceeding
for an amendment OF the constitution to
get rid of what he calls this effete doc
trine of apportonment."
why is it. y he asked. that the coun-
try is holding its breath for the decision
on the second hearing of this case? Why
are the people from end to end of the
country SO eager to hear the definite and.
let us hope. the final verdict in the case?
The reason is found in the fact that the
entire country is deeply concerned to
know whether the safeguards which had
been so dearly purchased by our fore
fathers were to be preserved to the
present or future generations or to be
trampled under foot and denied us. +"
Mr.. Choate then began his real argu-
ment. saying that as far as practicable he
would take up the question where it had
been left by the former decision. He
did not intend to surrender an advantage
gained by the former decision, and would
regard as settled and fixed that incomes
from municipal and state bonds could
not be taxed.
With the point as to public bonds set
tied, all the conundrums involved were
| answered. leaving the political questions
to take care of themselves.
The decision meant that the court con-
ceded the inherent rights of towns, coun-
ties and states to borrow money, and that
the federal government could no inter
fere with this right by crippling and
weakening instrumentalites Of their
credit.
| Mr.. Choate ridculed the position of the
government that a tax on rents was not a
tax on land. The decision already rem
dered met this objection completely. A
most careful brief has been filed on the
| question of direct taxation. The govern
inent has made the best answer it could
and that answer was not much. and Mr..
| Choate added: "What is Mr.. Whitney
idea of direct tax? Obviously he has
none. He said there was no such thing.
Duties had always been synonymous with
! taxes
| 1t had been the fortune of the supreme
court to decide great questions OH narrow
| phrases. The constitution was a consti.
tuition of cnumerations, not definitions.
| The con stitution did not define a direct
| tax.
At this point the court adjourned. and
Mr.. Choate will conlude his argument to-
morrow.