The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-05-07

SnHll, In the Virginia convention, explain
The objects of direct taxes are well uu-
derstoOd, they are but few. Lands, slaves,
stock Of an kinds, and few other ar
ucies Of domestic property.
Mr.. Guthrie also quoted from debates
in conventions In North Carolina, New
York. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc,
20 snow that the people did not UNDER
stand OF consider that the word direct"
in the constitution applied only 20 capi-
talon taxes and taxes directly on hand
since the last argument counsel had
discovered two instances one in Massa-
chusctts and one In Pennsylvania. where,
IN a law, the term direct taxes" was
used and deuued. In view OF this PROOF
counsel earnestly submitted 10 the court
that ~ was clearly the intention ana un-
derstandlng of The trainers OF the cOnfu-
tuition and of the people who voted 10
adopt 10 that the term direct taxes in
ciudcd tax upon personal property ana
its incomes as well as tax on land ana
income derived from its ownership. No
difference In principle between the taxa
ton of land and the taxation Of personal
property could be suggested which was
recognized I'm jurisprudence. Land had
some use, irrespective of It's income, but
the great body of personal property has
no value whatever TO its owner except by
reason Of the income arising thcrefrOm
logically, II taxes on rents. issues ana
profit of real estate are equivalent 10 taxes
on the land itself. and therefore direct
taxes, taxes on the income of personal
property as such must De equivalent TO
taxes on such property and therefore di-
rect taxes.
Mr.. Guthrie then took up the Hilton
case which he said had been the sole
cause of all the error on this question. and
which Il was insisted by the government
irreNocably established, as II written into
the constitution itself. the doctrine that
the federal government was limited IN
the power 10 lay direct taxes TO capita
ton tax and tax directly on land We
are told,' said he. that although the
conclusion might be different IT the ques-
ton were new one the court Is pre-
ut satf .H
constitutional question or guaranty by
the eNpressiona In this case Such an ar
gument comedies the possibility OF orlgi-
mai error. II Is never too late 10 adopt
and declare the truth as 10 the constitu-
tlon. Under such circumstances as are
mere presented, the doctrine OF Stare Decis
should not be applied. p"
In reply to the statement OF the Attor-
hey General on the application for re-
hearing that II this new exposition OF the
constitution" Is to prevail the United
states ought TO refund the sums collected
undcr the previous Income tax laws Mr..
Gnthrie said; III the suggestion is that
you close your eyes to the truth and re-
fuse TO interpret the constitution conform
ably to the intention of the trainers and
the people who adopted 1t because 1t may
involve the government In a loss Of money,
then We say that the suggestion Is irrele-
want, that II ought not TO have been
made, and that II lacks every element Of
political morality. There Is no propriety
on the part of the executive branch OF
the government In telling this court that
u should be affected one way or the other
by the fact that It's decisions may compel
the refunding of vast sums of motley un-
lawfully collected"
lie denied. however that there would be
any attempt TO refund this income tax.
or the cotton tax IL would be opposed by
every principle of civil right 10 hold these
sacrifices, willingly submitted 10 IN time
Of war. as precedents for unlawful exac-
tions In time OF peace. That taxation
submitted 10 by n patriotic people I'm "A
time Of war should furnish no precedent.
hfaaH IA
uonal rights for 500 years, II was declared
in the confirmation charter Of Edward ].
In 1897, seventy years of the Magma Char
ter and tho declaration Of principle that
the cxigencies of war should not create
precedents was reiterated by Chief JUS
tice Chase. With the quotation OF the
language Of this reiteration Mr.. Guthrie
closed his argument having spoken two
hours and ten minutes
lie was followed by Assistant Attorney
General b. B. Whitney In support of the
law. After an apology to the court for the
want of proper preparation for the pre-
sentation Of the case because of the lack
of the necessary time Mr. Whitney said
the government would sugg st nothing fur
ther on the subject of the tax upon state
and municipal bonds than had been set
forth in the original argument
The ruling Of the court as to the sub
ject of state and municipal bonds, Mr.
Whitney said, qld not IN the opinion OF
the governments counsel, affect the other
points involved. AS to the ruling upon
the exemption of incomes from rents
from the operations of the law, their po-
stion, he said, was somewhat different.
They believed that on that point they
would be able to appeal 10 every Justice
upon like grounds when case Is sent
back to a court for reheafing. when new
evidence has been discovered. In the
original hearing the government had nor
felt IL necessary to present any OF the
historical evidence relating to the ques-
ton Of direct taxes, but had been con-
tent, inasmuch as the complainants had
not in th0ir bills nor in their briefs indi-
Gated their intention Of contesting the
point, 10 rest upon the ad1udications OF
the court In previous cases, down 10,
and including the Springer case Now
that the government was about to pre-
sent the historical evidence, Mr.. Whit
ney claimed that It would present to the
court an entirely new view of the ques-
tion OF direct taxes, as much 10 as If the
case now to be heard anew with testi-
mony adduced which was not under con-
stance. And upon that he confidentially ap-
pealed TO and challenged the attention of
every, justice. This argument, he said,
would leave scarcely a loophole for the
entrance or the ones proposed by the
opponents of the law.
Proceeding, then, to the discussion Of the
historical evidence, Mr.. Whitney said that
the political economy upon which the
learned counsel depended for the support
Of their position, that Of John Stewart
Mil. had not been evolved at the time the
constitutional convention was held. The
form Of political economy that did prevail
at tha. time, he said, was held by politi-
cal economists OF to-day TO nave no pOlit-
ical bearing on the question Of direct
taxes; that IL Is only Of convenience in
the classification Of taxes because It is
admitted that all taxes are partly direct
and partly Indirect. Referring to the
classification of taxes by the constitu-
tional convention Mr.. Whitney said that
not enough attention had been given TO
the debates upon the phrases in the con-
stitution descriptive Of the various forms
Of taxation. These showed that the origf-
nal draft Of the constitution presented by
Mr.. Pinckney, which the court, In its
opinion had segmed to admit TO be au-
thentic. had not classed the captation az
a direct tax, but as an indirect tax. An
other subject which he referred to vas the
definition Of the term duties by the OPP
posing counsel. They seemed to hold the
word "duties' was equivalent to i'm
posts and excuses" ard included nothing
else: this idea ran through all that they
had to say upon the subject.
I'm the view OF the members of the con-
yention" said Mr.. Whitney, there were
two kinds of taxes. direct taxes and
duties. imposts and excises. The former
were laid by the rule Of appointment and |
the latter by the rule of uniformity" This |
he said, explaining what 10 him was a re- |
markable fact when he began the study of
the debates, the lack Of interest by the |
mem bers Of the convention IN the ques-
ton of the laying of taxes. They We're !
rather Interested in the question how /
lot HNa F of.