Evening journal., 1897-04-02
QUESTION OF VALIDITY.
Dalzell's Opinion Regarding the
Retroactive Tariff.
THE SENATE AMENDS THE TREATY.

in the Debate on Arbitration Chandler
Causticaliy Criticises Ensland's Foreign
PoIicy-No Date Fixed For Final Vote.
Morgan Introduces Cuban Resolutions.
Washington, April 2.-Representative
Dalzell OF Pennsylvania, who was a
member Of the subcommittee of the
ways and means committee which in
vestlgated the question Of the power OF
congress to provide for the enforcement
Of the duties OF the new tariff bin before
its enactment into law, has prepared an
argument in support Of the validity Of
the amendment.
MI. Dalzell says that the question as
to competency of congress to enact such
measure resolved itself simply into
the question as TO whether or not con-
gress under its power to levy and coli
lect taxes, can pass q retroactive meas
ure.
FIR. Dalzell does not think the case Of
Burr versus the United states, involv-
ing the date Of the enforcement Of the
Wilson bill, has any bearing on this
question, as it was not the intent Of
congress to make the duties under that
act apply from Aug. /. The date named
in the bill at which il was to take effect
was an accident.
In the present case the date, which is
the material matter involved, is not an
accident but is Intentionally and de-
signedly inserted for the express pur-
pose of having duties levied and coll
lected thereafter.
The taxing power OF congress as to
the time of levying taxes, ne says, is
without limitation, and he quotes the
case of in re Shorts estate Q6, Penn
syvania state reports). The state Of
Pennsylvania In 1926 passed a law by
which all inneritances being within that
commonwealth which by the intestacy
or the viii Of any decedent should de-
v0lve upon any other than the father,
mother, wife, children or lineal descend
ants Of such person should be subject to
q tax.
In 1850 an act was passed declaring
that the words being within this COM
monwealth" should be construed as to
relate TO all persons who have been at
the time of their dece0se or now may
be domiciled in this commonwealth as
well as to estates. In 1919 a citizen Of
Pennsylvania died and his will was ad-
mitted to probate i'm December of that
year The point was made that under
AnN hiA vi Ao-u Allt estate or the it-
cedent was not subject to tax and that
the act of 1850 was retroactive and
therefore not operative. The supreme
court Of Pennsylvania decided that the
personal estate of the deceased within
the commonwealth Of Pennsylvania
was subject to the tax: in other words.
that the act of 1850 had retroactive
4 force
Opinion of a Jurist.
Chief Justice Gibson said: more
pointed words 10 make the act retro
spective as well as prospective could
not have been chosen, and it will
scarcely be said the legislature had not
power to make it so, at least as to
assets remaining in the hands of the
executor or administrator. No clause
of the constitution forbids it to extend
a tax already laid or to tax assets not
taxed before, and in establishing its
peculiar Interpretation it has only done
Indirectly what it was competent to
do directly.
THE only suggestion that might be
made against this legislation is that it
is ox post facto legislation. This how
ever, is not true. In the case of Car
penter and others versus the common
wealth Of Pennsylvania the court says:
The debates in the federal convention
upon the constitution show that the
terms Eek post facto laws" We're under
stood in q restricted sense, relating to
criminal cases only and that the de-
scri ption of Blackstone of such laws
was referred 10 for their meaning This
sgnihcahon was adopted in this court
shortly after its organization in opln-
ions carefully prepared and has been
repeatedly announced since that time.
The same words are used in the con-
stitutions OF many of the states and in
the opinions of their courts and by
writers upon public laws and are uni
formly understood in this restricted
sense.
Mr. Dalzell adds: "The objection has
been urged that there cannot be two
avs in force at the same time. That is
rue enough. but this viii not leave two
avs in force at the same time. In
practice the duties that are called for
by existing law will be collected until
such time as the bill now under con-
'idcration shall become law, and then
he law will go into. effect so as to make
ollectible the excess of duties called for
by the bin over and above those paid
inder the present law. 1t seems to me
hnF the Amendments hac hoo, ,t.tea1,.