Birmingham age-herald., 1895-03-07
THE INCOME TAX
And Its Constitutionality to Be Tested in the United States
 Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, March 6.-Arrangements were made last Monday in the supreme court of the United States for argument in the income tax cases.
 At the opening of the court today Attor- ney- General Olney said there were three cases relating to the income tax now be- fore the court, two of them (the New York cases) presenting identically the same ques- tions and based upon the same records. The hlrd originated in the District of Co., lumbia, and was the only one in which the government was directly interested. That was suit in which the district attorney sued for an injunction to restrain the com. missioner of internal revenue from pro- ceeding to carry out the law. The attor- ney-general asked that the government might be permitted to appear in the other two cases, however, and be suggested that they be all consolidated, and whatever time was deemed reasonable for their argu- ment might be given to counsel.
 Chief Justice Fuller asked If counsel on the other side had anything to suggest in the matter, and MT. Shallabarger of this city responded that his firm appeared for MT. Moore in the suit against Cominis- sioner Miller. He said he was laboring under some embarrassment, from the fact that 1t had been arranged that Ex-Senator Edmunds, who was associated with them, should make the oral argument in behalf
 
 still was sick in bed with grip. He had received a telegram from MT. Edmunds yesterday saying that he expected to be able to appear tomorrow and that he would make the argument if required. MT. Shailabarger said that he had no objection to the consolidation of the cases If it did not otherwise abbreviate the time to which they would be entitled. The chief justice said that the purpose of consolidation would be to set for hearing as one case.
 MT. J. o. Carter, who appears for the Continental Trust company in support of the law, observed that the ordinary rules governing the time for argument seemed to be inadequate.
 The chief justice inquired how much time counsel thought they should have. His idea was to take the three cases to- gether, and asked if one hour in addition would be enough to satisfy counsel.
 MT. c. A. Seward, who represents the stockholders of the New York Trust com pany, is opposed to the law, and said that he could speak for only two of the cases, in which there were five counsel engaged, and he hoped that ample time would be given.
 After consulting with his associates on the bench the chief justice announced that they had decided to allot ten hours to conn- sel, five on each side, the division of which they might adjust among themselves. If it developed that this time was insuf- ficent it would be enlarged. The govern ment, he stated, would be permitted to be heard and three counsel on side would be permitted to speak. The usual rule giving the opening and closing to the appellant. he said, would be observed, but the court desired that but one counsel for appellants should be heard on closing; that IS, that their speeches would be sandwiched in among speeches TOT appellees.
 Counsel have not arranged among them- selves how the division of time shall be made, but it is probable that Ex-Senator Edmuuds, MT. Joseph H. Choate and MT. Seward will speak for the appellants in opposition to the law, and the attorney general and MT. Carter for the appellees, in favor of the law. The argument will probably begin tomorrow.