The record-union., 1895-04-16
ROYAL BAKING POWDER
INCOME TAX LAW.
No Possibility of Another Hearing Be-
fore Next Fall.


No Possibility of Another Hearing Be-
fore Next Fall.
WASHINGTON, April 1.-THE deter
mination of the appellants in the income
tax cases to secure rehearing before a
full bench Of the United States Supreme
Court on the points on which the court
divided has caused renewal of interest
in the question of Justice Jackson's S
health, and the possibility for his return
to the bench at an early day. Late ad-
vices from Judge JacGson's home at
Nashville is that he is constantly improv-
ing, and that, barring a very annoying
cough, his physical condition is fairly
good. 1t is also stated from the same
source that he expects to be able to re-
sumo his duties as member of the court
at the beginning of the October term.
There remains little more than month
OF the present term, and it is not sug-
gested that he may return for this brief
period.
In view of the fact that there can be no
possibility of another argument in the
case before next fail or winter, this is
equally true if Justice Jackson should
decide to retire permanently from the
bench, which, 1t is understood. he has no
thought Of doing. In that contingency,
however, the bench could not be tilIed be-
fore the assembling of Congress. No in
stance is known when a man nominated
for the Supreme bench has taken his seat
before he was confirmed by the Senate.
Congress will not convene until next De-
cember, and under no circumstances
would the Senate be likely to pass upon a
confirmation of this magnitude until
after their Christmas holidays. Action
might, indeed, be postponed much longer.
and it possibly would be, if the prediIec-
uons of the nominee should be opposed
to the income tax, as the Senate is COM
mitted to the law.
1t is also suggested that Justice who
had not participated in the first hearing
might feel dellcacy in sitting when the
case was under consideration the second
time. 1t Is quite possible that the petition
for rehearlng may not be granted. The
COURTS rule OF procedure in such cases is
only to grant such petitions upon the re-
quest of mem Der OF the court who has
voted IN opposition to the wishes of the
petitioner.
Senator Chandler of New Hampshire
was asked to-day for his opinion as to the
suggestion of Assistant Attorney General
w Whitney, that the Constitution might be
SO amended as to prevent the imposition
of direct taxes, and replied: ITO amend
the Constitution il is necessary to secure
two-thirds vote of Congress, and then
to have the amendment ratified by the
State Legislatures. L think it will be I'M
practicable to do that. There never have
been any amendments to the Cons titution
except of negative character-none pro-
viding for modes of government-aud
with the increasing members in both
houses of Congress, and the growth Of
the United States, it becomes more and
more difficult to secure change. Fur
thermore, l do not think an amendment
of the Constitution is needed to secure a
valid income tax law. 1t can be had by
apportioning the tax among the States in
proportion to population, and l am in
ciIned to think that, since the decision of
lhe Supreme Court. there will be an effort
in that direction in the next session."