St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-05-07

10 congress, because 1t is arbitrary
and unjust, and in violation of the ex-
press provisions of the constitution.
He then took up the question of ex-
emptions and limitations, repeating
much of the argument advanced at the
first hearing, and asked the court to
declare the whole act unconstitutional
because of the exemptions. Replying
TO the suggestion of the attorney gen
eral that in the light of the recent de-
c1slon the government should refund
the money collected under
FORMER INCOME TAX LAWS,
Mr.. Guthrie said: "The people of the
United States gladly paid the income
tax to defray the expenses of the war,
and would make similar sacrifices to-
day II 1t were necessary. Congress has
not returned the cotton tax, although
it was clearly sectional, partial and
unfair. Has it ever been advanced as
principle of justice or morality that
il you decide that a certain interpreta-
ton of the customs laws has been er
roneous, every man who had paid
without protest is entitled to have
his duties refu1ded?'
Mr.. Guthrie concluded at o'clock
and was followed by Assistant At
torney General Whitney, on behalf Of
the government. Mr.. Whitney COM
planned of the brief time given for pre-
pairing for the rehearing He said the
government would not again present
any argument on the question of
municipal bonds. He did not suppose
that any tax law had ever been enact
ed which made express mention of all
possible exemptions. If such a re-
quirement were to be applied there
would be very few valid laws. AS to
the question of the. exemptions of
rentals of real estate, that was differ
ent. The government had hopes that
this question could be so presented as
to
OBTAIN A REVERSAL
of the former opinion. He contended
that the bills in these cases asked for
no special relief in cases of rentals.
He announced that the historical and
definite argument would be handed to
the court in the shape of a brief. Mr..
Whitney said that the appellant relied
principally upon the system of econo-
mics of John Stuart Mill, which had
not come into existence at the time
the constitution was adopted, and he
contended that the distinction be-
tween direct and indirect taxes was so
abstruse that it was not possible to
incorporate it in a written constitu-
ton. Mr.. Whitney, in criticism of the
opposition for going so far back into
history for precedents, said he had not
intended to go back further than 1859,
but as the appellants had gone to 1850,
n W. n criHy ,Jot,
of that date.
Cannot you," asked the chief justice,
in a tone which appeared to contain a
spirit of banter, ego back further than
that?'
Il might" replied Mr.. Whitney, "but
should not tax the patience of the
court to that extent but for the pre-
cedent of my learned friends on the
other side" He said he would agree
to stop short of 118O if Mr.. Choate
would, whereupon Mr. Choate assured
Mr.. Whitney and the court that he
would stop several centuries short of
that date. Mr.. Whitney referred at
some length to the distinctions be-
tween the words
TAX AND DUTY
in English legislation. He said this
distinction had been very sharp, and
the word tax had been applied only
where the word duty would not be
made to cover the case. 'If,'' he said,
''the trainers of the constitution were
acquainted with Blackstone, they were
familiar with the English classifica-
tion." popularity of the English
system, since 1859, was that everything
called a tax was laid by the rule of
apportionment, whereas everything
called a duty was laid by the rule of
uniformity. The thorough understand
ing of this principle by the Democrats
OF the convention explained the ap-
parerG lack of interest in the discus
sion of the distinction in these matters.
The important question with them ap-
peared to be that of the proper distri-
button of duties to be made according
to apportionment. He contended that
the direct taxes were traceable TO the
English land taxes, and it was i'm
possible to levy such a tax by appor-
tionment. The system of apportion-
ment among countries was the same in
this country in the early days, as in
England.
At this point, Mr.. Whitney was in
terrupted by the adjournment of the
g. 4 l.