The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-01-10

in the court of claims for the recovery
OF their properly. There now remains IA
the treasury, as shown by official report,
something over $40, 500 900 OF the proceeds
OF these sales held by the government as
a trust fund and to whiIh the owners
still hold the undivested title as decided
by the supreme court In the Klein case.
This tribunal declared that by the eXenu-
tive proclamation OF pardon and amnesty
OF July 4, 1868, the government decided
affirmatively that the restoration Of The
proceeds of this property became the alb
solute right OF the persons pardoned. This
pardon was full. unconditional and sweep
ing, with restoration of all rights. priyl-
leges and 4mmnnites under the constitu-
ton and laws. which no subsequent legisia-
ton could prejudcially effect The short
two-year jurisdiction OF the court OF claims
on this subject matter, conferred amid hos
tilities. expired more than year before
the supreme court decided when the war
ended. and when II was then too late for
claimants TO derive any benefit from the
decision.
Here there is undivestcd title ip sum
OF money belonging to American citiScns
judically ascertaned TO be held by the
government as a trust fund and no court
in which to sue for IT. All those CLAIMS.
which have been adversely determined on
the ground OF disloyaty and those dis
missed for want OF Jurisdiction should, ny
provision OF law, be reinstated on the
docket Of the court OF claims ana iogisia-
ton made broad enough for the adiuhlea.
ton OF all rights and interests growing out
Ct this fund. In the strong language OF
the committee on war claims OF the Ely
fourth congress, to delay further is sil1r.y
To rob the owners OF their rights.
THE act OF July 13. 1860. imposed a lax
OF q cents pound on cotton grown in
the United States 4 constitutional tst
OF this tax was sought in the supreme
court in 1869, when the judges were equally
divided In opinion as TO the constitutional
ity OF the laws making the levy. Chief jus
tice Chase being sick. Before the question
could Jgain be presented the law was re-
pealed Tire house committee on judiciary
In the Fifty-second congress. TO which a
variety 1f enabling measures on the sub
ject had been referred. felt that the iir-
portant question should be aettled ~ 10
whether this large sum, amounting TO GRAF
~ $50 600 900. was rightfully or wronsfu.iy
collected as taxes. The committee reported
in favor OF the passage OF bill when
provided for opening the court 81 CLAIMS
TO those who paid the tax until case
had been made out and properly nppeaisa
TO the supreme court. II also provided fcr
a stay OF proceedings until the question was
decided. and in the event that ihc nfis
were held TO be unconstitutional further
provision was made for . s,;stfpie tine
thereafter within which all Interested per-
CONS might file suit In the court OF claims
No action was, however. taken upon the
committee report,
.There can be no contention that this
cotton tax was passed undrr the war
power. f.r the cotton States had becorbe
fully organizcd in the Tpien. as Was re-
oognized by the government IN submitting
to them the fourteenth amendment tpr
ratification Nobody doubts now thai Il
was a direct tax governed by the tonstt-
tutionai rule OF appportionme Mifsis
sipri raid as much q this tax as Georgia
and Tenn Ssee, those States having then
double the representation Of MissiEsiroi
THE Federal legislative branch wac not
constitutional congress- which passed
those laws. for n,nfaeen States were Ne
MED representation BY the same congress