The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-04-02
TON IN ANTEDATING
THE ACT.
RETRoAeTIoN is INVOLVED.
DECISION DOES NOT AP-
PLY.
Elk POST FAcTo IT'S REAL DANGER.
The Pennsylvania Member Inclined
to Think the Amendment Is
Within the Constitution.

WASHINGTON, April 1-Represent-
ative Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, who was
member Of the subcommittee Of the
ways and means committee which in
VeStigated the question of the power Of
congress to provide for the enforcement
of the duties of the new tariff bill be-
fore it's enactment into law, has pre-
pared an argument in support of the
validity Of the amendment. Mr. Dali
zell says: 1T is manifest that the
prospect of the passage of a new tariff
law will increase importations to such
an extent as to largely interfere with
its anticipated advantages during the
first year Of its operation. Hence, any
means that can be adopted to prevent
such anticipatory importations will be
in the interest of the revenues
He says that the competency Of con-
gress to enact such a measure resolves
itself simply into the question as to
whether or not congress, under it's pow
er to levy and collect taxes, can pass a
retroactive measure. Mr. Dalzen does
not think the case involving the date
of the enforcement of the Wilson bill
has any bearing on this question. The
courts duty, he says, was to inquire
what was the intention of the legisla-
ton and, very plainly, it was not the
intent of congress to make the duties
to apply from Aug. l. The date named
in the bill, at which it was to take eff
feet, was an accident. In the case we
have to deal with, the date, which is
the material matter involved, is not an
accident, but it is Intentionally and
designedly inserted for the express pur-
pose Of having duties levied and COL
1ected thereafter
So the question recurs as to the power
Of congress, under the taxing clause Of
the constitution, to enact retroactive
legislation. The taxing power of con-
gress as to the time of levying taxes Is
without limitation and so, upon this
subject, 1 entertain no doubt The
state of Pennsylvania in 1926 passed a
law by which all inheritances being
within that commonwealth, which by
the intestacy or the will Of any de-
cedent, should devOlve upon any other
than the father, mother, wife, children
or lineal descendants of such person
should be subject to a tax. In 1850 an
act was passed declaring that the words
being within this commonwealth"
should be so construed as to relate to
all persons who have been at the time
OF their deceaSe or now may be domi-
C1led In this commonwealth, as we'll as
to estates. In 1849 a citizen Of Pennsyl-
yania died and his will was admitted to
probate in December Of that year The
point was made that under the act Of
1926 the estate of the decedent was not
subject to tax and that the act of 1850
was retroactive and therefore not oper-
ative. The supreme court. of Pennsyl-
Vanta declared that the personal estate
of the deceased, within the common
wealth Of Pennsylvania, was subject to
the tax; in other words, that the act
Of 1850 had retroactive force
Chief Justice Gibson said: more
pointed words to make the act retro
spective as we'll as prospective could
not have been chosen, and it will
scarcely be said the legislature had not
the power to make it so. No clause of
the constitution. forbids it to extend
tax already laid, or to tax assets not
taxed before; and in establishing it's
peculiar Interpretation it has only done
indirectly what it was competent to do
directly"
The only suggestion, in Mr.. DalzelPs
opinion, that might be made against
this legislation Is that it is ex post
facto legislation and on this point he
quotes the case of Carpenter and others
VS.. the commonwealth or PennSyIVa-
MIA. The court said: 1.-The debates in
the federal convention upon the consti-
tuition show that the term Eek post
factO' was understood in a restricted
sense, relating to criminal cases only,
and that the description of Blackstone
of such laws was referred to for their
meaning. This Specification was
adopted in this court shortly after it's
organization, in opinions carefully pre-
pared. and has been repeatedly an
nounced since that time. The same
words are used in the constitutions OF
many of the states and in the opinion
of their courts and by writer's upon
public law and are uniformly under
stood in this restricted sense
Mr.. Dalzell adds: THE objection has
been urged that there cannot be two
laws in force at the same time. That
is true enough; but this will not leave
two laws in force at the same time. III
practice, the duties that are called for
by existing law will be collected until
such time as the bill now under cOnsid-
Grafton shall become law, and then
that law will go into effect so as to
make collectible the excess of duties
called for by the bill over and above
those paid under the present law. 1t
seems to me that the amendment has
been wisely adopted"