The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-05-09

and inequalities of an existing system
of taxation. In 176 the fathers of the
republic said: Here is constitution of
government-not metaphysical treatise.
1T declined to say that taxes must be
appOrtiOned. If this rule of 1196 We're to
be followed, the cases now at the bar
would present no difficulties. In lieu OF
it, however, fagrant inequality OF the
working of the new doctrine being fully
admitted, what we are presented with is
the suggestion that it is not for current
everyday use, but it is to be applied oni
in extraordinary emergencies. What is
the value of this suggestion? Generally
speaking, nothing of course. l VIII not
prOlong the oral discussion. There are
important questions, of course of which
| have not spoken. But they were elthe
argued fully at the former hearing or nav
been completely covered at the presen
time by the learned argument OF my as
sociate. l leave the case to the court
therefore. at this point. feeling sure of
this, at least, that if any consideration
which could hold safe to govern the lnteg-
rity of one of its most important powers
has failed to be developed the failure can
not be imputed to any want of apprecla-
ton of the Importance of the cause nor to
any omission to give to it the most careful
investigation and study"
Mr.. Olney concluded at $40 p. m. and
was Immediately followed by Mr.. Choate,
who began the concluding argument Tor the
appellants in the case. Mr.. Choates
manner of introducing his argument was
strikingly peculiar He began as if in the
middle of a sentence or as II he intended
to complete sentence begun and unhnlSh
ed by either Mr.. Olney or Mr.. Whitney.
"But." said he. "if the court please, we
;,, pf Ia nd in pf
constitution and not engaged in masquer
aiding performance. Nor are we a political
assembly, as Mr.. Whitney seems to think,
in whose presence his chief (NIr Olney)
might be proceeding for an amendment of
the constitution to get rid of what he calls
this doctrine of apportionment.
"Why is it?" 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 one end of the country
to the other so eager to hear the definite
and, let us hope, the final verdict in this
case. The reason was found in the fact
that the entire country was deeply con-
cerned to know whether the safeguards
which had been so dearly purchased and
future generations or to be trampled under
foot and denied u.s."
Mr.. Choate then began his real argu-
ments, 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 any advantage
gained by the former decision and would
regard it as settled and fixed that in
comes from municipal and State bonds
could not be taxed. With the point as to
public bonds settled, all the conundrums
involved were answered, leaving the poll
teal questions to take care of themselves
The decision meant that the court con-
ceded the inherent right of towns. coun
ties and States to borrow money and that
the Federal government could not inter-
fere with the right by gripping and weak
ening instrumentalties of their credit.
Mr.. Choate ridiculed the position of the
government that a tax on rents was not
tax on land. The decision already rem
dered met this objection completely. A
most careful brief had been filed on the
question of direct taxation. The govern
ment had made the best answer it could
and that answer was not much and, Mr.
ChOate added: "What is Mr.. Whitney S
idea of a direct tax? Obviously he has
none. He said there We're no such things
Duties had always been synonymous with
taxes. 1t had been the fortune of the
supreme court to decide question on mar
row phases. The constitution was a con
stitution of enumerations, not definitions
The constitution did not define a direc
tax.
At this joint the court adjourned an
Mr.. Choate will conclude his argumen
tomorrow.