The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-05-26

Total ........ $6S, ,072.3yS .gg
 Tt will be remembered that these taxes were collected under the act of Congress from the years 1883 to 1868. both inclusive. This tax was imposed on cotton and was required to be paid by the purchaser. owner, or holder, as the case might be. and constituted a lien on the cotton from the day of as sessment until the amount of the tax was paid.
 "The collection of these taxes was often and sometimes largely made in States other than those in which the cotton was grown. as the table will show. The returns and books in the Treasury Department show that most of the tax was collected In the cotton producing States.
 "Of the twenty-slx States in which these cotton taxes were collected, fif- teen are not known as cotton growing States. and, of course. no cotton was produced in non-cotton growing States, except to c small extent in two or three of the non-cotton growing States, winch, during the war, did grow a small quantity of cotton: as, for in- stance, in the States of Illinois. Mis- souri and Kentucky. It may be re- marked that there Is somef cotton now being grown in the Southern part of Missouri.
 The taxes collected In these States where cotton was not produced were on cotton which had been brought into them from the cotton growing States before the taxes had been collected on 1t. and the taxes were there assessed on the cotton in the hands of the owner, purchaser. or holder in accordance with the provision of the Federal stat ute.
 "It has long been the opinion of law yers generally, and l may say also the view of the Federal authorities. that the cotton tax was levied and collect ed in violation of the constitution. Ger talnly, If the Income tax law was un- constitutional the tax upon this farm product. cotton. was undoubtedly un- constitutional.
 During the present Congress a number of bills have been introduced for the purpose of refunding, in one way or another, this cotton tax money, Most of the bills seek to divert the funds to some public purpose--for the building of public roads, for public schools. etc. The bill which I have in- troduced (H. R. 21993) provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the State of Alabama the S1o.3SS,- 072.10 collected from the people of Ala bama as tax on their cotton.
 The best medium through which this tax money can be refunded in my judgment, is through the States re- spectiveiy from whose people 1t was collected. The State can provide prop CT and simple means for It's distri- button to its rightful owners. The claimants would then have an oppor- tunty to assert their rights speedily and inexpensively in their own local courts. Of course. this would be less expensive and very much more expe- difious than to have these clans ad- justed before the Court of Claims at Washington.
 The Federal Government ought to pay back to each State the amount col lected from the people of that State and let the State hold the fund in trust for the rightful owner or their heirs. Of course. if there are no heirs or benehciaries of any deceased owner, then that part of the tax money would ascheat to the State.
 ''Certainlv the Federal Government had no right to take this money from the cotton growers and cotton owners of Alabama. and I do not think that the money. If refunded. would any more rightfully belong to the State than to the Federal Government. It ought to go back to the people or their heirs from whom 1t was wrongfully taken. I think this is a sound propo- sition of ethics or morality.
 MT. Brantley. of Georgia, has intro | duced a bill similar to mine, for the | case of Georgia. So has Mir. Floyd, of | Arkansas; likewise has Mir. Johnson. of | Kentucky, for his State, and quite a | number of other bills have been intro- 1 duced by members from their respect i've States. believe that the day is not far distant when this money will he refunded.
 "Who the rightful owners of this money are, I have been unable to as- certain. although I am informed that the books in the Treasury Department will show who paid the taxes.
 Tt will be remembered that several efforts have been made to pass resolu- tions calling for this list of people who paid these taxes, but 1t has here tofore met with successful opposition and, doubtless. for the reason that the Idea was that 1t would subject Con- gress to a multitude of bills of individ- ua1 claimants. My proposition is to pass a bill for each State and let the State. without expense to the Federal Government determine the rightful claimants or owners Of this fund"
 Alfred J. Stofer,