New-York tribune. [volume], March 01, 1910, Page 4, Image 4

About New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
4
REPLIES TO HUGHES
ROOT O.Y IXCOME TAX
dMEKDMEKT.
TJrgcs Legislature to Adopt It
— Sees Xo Danger to
Slates' Poicers.
IBy TeiecrapSjT.t*' The Tribune.) .
Albany, Feb. 2S. — With an explanation
that 3 difference of legal opinion did not
mean any personal controversy. Senator
Davenport to-nlpht read in the Senate
* letter from United States Senator
Elihu Root taking Issue with Governor
Hugrhcs'j? position that the warding of
the proposed income tax amendment to
the federal Constitution would affect
Incomes derived from state bonds. Sen
ator Root took this informal method of
communicating: his views to the Legis
lature, Senator Davenport said, because
he felt That it was for the Governor
only to send a formal communication to
that body.
In his letter Senator Root took the po
sition that the proposed amendment
-would not enlarge the taxing power of
th«» federal government. He believed it
would be a great cause for regret if New
York State refused to accept the amend
ment. He pointed out that while a very
large part of The tax would be paid by
residents of New York City, that portion
would be paid on incomes derived from
Investments or business interests all
over the country.
, Senator Root's Letter.
' Senator Root's letter follows:
United States Senate. ")
TYashirjjrton. February 17. l?lO.j"
My Dear Senator: Since msr conversation
last month I have piven much considera
tion to the scope and effect of the proposed
Income tax amendment to the Constitution
<f the United State?.
Much as I respect the opinion of the Gov
ernor of the state. I cannot ;ipree with the
view expressed in his special message of
January 5. and as I advocated in the Sen
■te the resolution to submit the. proposed
amendment It seems appropriate that I
sbasJK :;tate my view of its effect.
The proposed amendment is in these
■words:
Article 15. The Congress -hall have
power to lay *nd collect taxes on income?,
from whafv*=r source derived, without ap
portionment among the several state? and
■without regard to any census or enumera
tion.
The. objection mad* to the amendment is
ihai ihis will confer upon the national gov
<-- ■ sot the power to tax incomes derived
from bonds issued by th* 1 states or under
the authority cf tho states, sad will place
Urn borrowing capacity of Ute stat^ and its
governmental agencies at the mercy of the
federal taxing: power.
I do not find in the amendment any such
BBBSSBBSK or effect. I do not consider that
the amendment in any degree whatever will
enlarge the taxing: power of the national
frTOveninient or will have, any effect except
To re Jieve th*> exercise of that taxing power
from the requirement that the tax shall be
apportioned bumbsE the several states. The
effect of the amendment will be, in my view,
the same as if it said: "The United States
may lay a tax on incomes without appor
tioning the tax. and this shall be applicable
whatever the source of the income subjected
to the tax." leaving the question "What
incomes are ■ahfeefl to national taxation?"
to b*i determined by the same principles and
rules which are now applicable to the deter
mination of that question.
Must Be Taken Altogether.
If we were to construe the proposed
amendment only by a critical examination
■f its words the view upon which the ob
jection hi based would be reached by prac
tically cutting: the provision in two and
reading it as if It read. "The Congress
thall have power In lay and collect taxes
on ■CMS from whatever source, derived,"
without the ooncludingr words. Bui we are
not as liberty to do this. The amendment
consists of a flnfjle ssentence, and the whole
r' 1' must be read together. It expresses
but a single idea, and that is that the tax
bo which it relates must be laid and col
lected without apportionment among th«
<ral states and without regard to any
season or enumeration, while the words
"from whatever source derived" are obvi-
Buaty introduced to make the exemption
from the rule of apportionment compre
hensive and applicable to all taxes on in
comes.
W<e ■-.' not left, however, to a mere
critical examination of words. This pro
vision, as Mr. Justice Bradley said of the
Constitution In the ;egai tender case?, is
":o be interpreted in the lijrht of history
end of the circumstances of the period in
tvLicii it was framed." justice Story said
>f another clause cf the Constitution, in
Briscoe sjrt- the Bank of Kentucky (11
Peters. TUt:
And ! mean ti» insist that Uk history of
ate colonies, before and during: the Revolu
302 and down to the very time of the
ic&ption of the Constitution, constitutes
he highest a* '. most authentic evidence to
irtxich we can resort to interpret this clause
nf the instrument; antf- to disregard it
would be to bliird ourselves to the prac
tical mischiefs which it was meant to
suppress and to fo;j;et all the preat pur
poses to which it was to he applied.
This view must necessarily be applied to
the proposed amendment if it be adopted.
It will be construed in the ISpht of the judi
cial and political history which led to the
proposal and arl •' appears upon the pub-
Jir records .-,* --, ;r government.
" ■-.• is that history? The Constitution
o5 17ST conferred upon the national em
inent the power of taxation without any
Jimit whatever, except that taxes on ex
ports were prohibited.
Limits or. Taxing Power.
The method of exercising the power, how
•■veiC sea* subjected lo two limitations— one
that imports, duties and excise? f-bo-jld tie
un'for:r: and the other that direct taxes
should be apportioned among the states.
The aDDOrtionment provisions were as fol
lows:
Article :— Section '. Representatives and
direct taxes shall •►*■ apportioned amour
the m ■•■• states which may be included
within this Union, according to their re
•peetiv: number*, etc. (Amended, but not
in (his respect, by the Fourteenth Amend
ment.)
Article i— Section I No rapitation or
other direct tax sha be laid, unless in
■•■••■■■- or enumeration
hereinbefore directed 10 be taken.
Par meas) than a hundred years after ti;e
p.doptlon Of the Constitution various tax
laws of Oaaapveaa were from time to time
brov.ght before the courts ujion objections
that they imposed direct taxes in violation
of l he rule of apportionment. The decisions
of the courts uniformly sustained these
WHY SALVES FAIL
TO CURE ECZEMA
ScJsntUU "are now agreed that th«
o zcir:~ germs ar<* lodged not !n the
o-jtcr fckln or epidermis, but in the in
nf-r Pkin Hence. 8 penetrating liquid
i« r« quired, not an outward salve that
C>93!S the pores.
We recommend to all eczema patients
The standard prescription Oil of Win
tergreeu as compounded in liquid form
known as D D D. Prescription. A trial
bottle Of this D. D. D Prescription, at
only 25 cent*, Kill Instantly relieve tin
itch. Wo have sold aiui recommended
this remedy for years, and kr.ov.- O f won
derful cures from Its use. We reeom
pjmbbl it to our patrons. liegeman i:
Co.. PJker's Drug Stores.
laws, from the. Hylton case, in 1796, which
sustained an unapportioned tax on car
riages (3 Dallas. 171), to the Springer case,
in ISflt which sustained an unapportioned
tax on incomes. (102 U. 8.. 588.)
In the mean time numerous laws were
passed and enforced imposing taxes on in
comes without apportionment, and a great
part of the means for carrying on the Civil
"War was derived from such taxes.
Superior Court's Decision.
In the year 1595, however, an Income tax
law included in the "Wilson tariff act of
1594 was brought before the Supreme Court
In the case of Pollock agt. the Farmers"
i I^oan and Trust Company, and in that case
the court decided against the law. The
; case was heard twice. On the first hea'
| Ing a majority of the court held that a tax
on income derived from real estate must
be apportioned as a direct tax because a
tax on real estate itself would be dlie.tt;
and the judges divided equally as to
whether a tax on Income derived from per
sonal property must be apportioned £181
U. S. 42?).
Upon the second hearing of the case the
court, by a majority of five to four, held
that a tax upon income cert' from per
sonal property must be considered a. direct
tax and must be apportioned (153 O. S.,
Ml). All the judges agreed, however, that
tax- on incomes derived from business or
occupations need not be apportioned. The
effect of these decisions was thus described
in one of the minority opinions:
But the serious aspect of the present de
cision is that J>y a new interpretation of
the Constitution it so ties the hands of
the legislative branch of the government
that without an amendment •of that in
strument, or unless this court, at some
future time, should return to the old theory
of the Constitution, Congress cannot sub
ject to taxation — however great the needs
or pressing the necessities of the govern
ment — the invested personal prop
erty of the country, bonds, stocks and in
vestments of all kinds, or the income aris
ing from the renting of real estate, or from
the yield .if personal property, except by
the grossly unequal and unjust rule of ap
portionment among* the states. Thus, un
due and disproportloned burdens are placed
upon the many, while the few, safely in
trenched behind the rule of apportionment
among the states on the basis of numbers,
are permitted to evade their share of re
sponsibility 'for the support of the govern
ment ordained for the protection of the
rights of aIL
It was so evidently impossible to collect
an income tax by apportionment amone the
| states according to population that the
i pen<=ra] judgment of thp country confirmed
| the opinion that the decision in the Pollock
case had practically taken away from Con
press a power of vital importance to the
peneral government — a power the exercise
of which had. at le.iFt in one Time of peril,
proved essential to the nation's life.
i
Need of More Revenue.
Th*» attenti Ml of the country was sharply
called to the need of more government reve
ruc for the first time «fter the Pollock case
by the decrease of customs and internal
revenue receipts and the rapidly mounting
deficit which followed the financial panic
of IJKT7. and in the extraordinary session of
('•Tt press which began on March 15, 190S,
when the revised tariff bill came Into the
Senate an amendment to the bill was intro
duced, reproducing: in substance the old
income tax provisions of 1894, which the
Supreme < ourt had held to be invalid both
a-= to income derived from real estate and
as to income derived from personal prop
erly. The avowed and necessary effect of
ineiuding Bach provisions in the new tariff
la« would be to present again to the Su
preme Court the same questions which had
"•een decided in the Pollock case and to
challenge a reversal of their decision.
Thereupon the resolution for the submis
sion of this amendment was introduced in
the Senate and was passed by Congress.
proposal followed the suggestions of
the Supreme Court in tie Pollock case.
The evil to be remedied was avowedly
and manifestly the incapacity of the na
tional government, resulting- from the de
cision that Income practically could net be
taxed when derived either from real estate
or from personal property, although it could
be taxed when derived from business or
occupation.
Th- term: 5 of the amendment are likely
to cure that cvi! and to take away from the
different classes of income considered by
the court a practical immunity from taxa
tfon t>asvd upon the source from which
they were derived.
State Securities Immune.
There was no question in Congress or in
the courts or in the country about the
taxation of state securities. No one claimed
that the inability of the general govern
ment to tax them was an evil. The inability
to tax them did not arise from the terms
of the Constitution, but from the fact that,
being the necessary Instruments of carry
ing on other and sovereign governments,
they were not the proper subject of na
tional taxation, and that, therefore, no pro
visions of the Constitution, however wide
the scope of their language, could be held
to apply to such securities or to the income
from them. Judge Cooley. in his work on
Constitutional Law. says:
The power to tax. whether by the United
States or by the states, is to be construed
in the light of, and limited by, the fact,
that the states and the Union are insepa
rable, and that the Constitution contem
plates the perpetual maintenance of each
with ali its constitutional powers, unem
bairassed and unimpaired by any action of
the other. The taxing power of the federal
government does not therefore extend to
the .means or agencies through or by the
employment of which the states perform
their essential functions, etc.
This rule of construction has been main
tained for generations. It is undisputed;
it was referred to with approval by the
justices who wrote and delivered the opin
ions in the Pollock case both for and
against the judgment. It has been de
dared again and again by the Supreme
Court to be not open to question. It is a
rale of construction just as controlling in
defining the scope of th« proposed amend
ment a3 it is in defining the scope of the
existing provision? Under it, from the
earliest times of our government, the ap
parently unlimited taxing power conferred
by the terms of the Constitution has been
held not '■'> apply to the Instrumentalities
of the state. Under it acts of Congress
which, by their express terms, appeared
to Include instrumentalities of state gov
ernment, have uniformly been held not to
include them. This uniform, long estab
lished and indisputable rule applied to the
construction of our Constitution— rule
which has been declared to be essential to
a continuance of our dual system of gov
ernment—forbids that the words of that
Instrument conferring the power of taxa
tion shall be deemed to apply to anything
but the proper subjects of national taxa
tion. Under it we are forbidden to apply
the words "from whatever source derived"
In the proposed amendment to any of the
instrumentalities of state government.
No New Grant of Power.
This amendment will be no new grant of
power. The Congress already has power to
Impost • taxes on Incomes •from whatever
source derived, subject to the rule of con
struction which exclude* Ktato securities
from tin operation of the power; but the
taxes bo imposed must be apportioned
among the states. Under the proposed
amendment there will be the same and no
greater power to tax incomes from what
ever *oiM«.e derived, subject to the same
rule of construction", but relieved from the
I 1 'i ■>]. ■ . !.:• ii: that the tax shall be appor
tioned:
It appears therefore, that v.r, danger to
ti> puswis or Instrumentalities of the
i i from the adop
: tn« imendment.
!« w-.'ii'i !< hi;" ;• regret :f the
■:• ■ •■ •■ ! '■•!.• gislat
ure - r %■ ■ I orli
Should Not Selfish.
It is saiil that a very large part of any
income tax under the amendment would he
paid by the citizens of New Fork. That
is undoubtedly true, but there is nil tho
bio:« reason why ".a UegfslsiUire should
take special care to exclude every narrow
aud selfish motive from Influence upon its
action and should consider the proposal In
a spirit .1 broad national patriotism and
NEW- YORK DAILY TRIBUNE. TUESDAY. MARCH 1. !»«>.
THE VAyiJ* WASHI/fGTOJV
DO YOU REALIZE.— Do you realize that
despite ail the publicity given to the fact
that Secretary Ballinger cancelled an order
whereby Secretary Garfleld had withdrawn
from entry 3,000,000 acres to protect water
powsr sites. Mr. Ballingcr never disturbed
other orders? of hi* predecessor, withdraw
ing 60,000.000 acres for conservation pur
poses" Do you understand t«J9*. Sir. Viai
lingers cancellation oro-r aff^tcfi ifcSS
than 5 per cert of the ari.-u >li!'firann"
Do you know ha ever since January. i9OB,
the government has been seeking to defeat
the Cunningham claims to Alaska coal
land* because it feare i the fiuggenbeims
were in a conspiracy to Ret hold of these
claims; that it is trying to ■'.< so stl'.l; that
the- removal of Ola has, never affected
in any way the purpose of the administra
tion to cancel these claims? Do you know
that not . i ••■ acre of Alaska coal lands has
been patented— that is. has passed into
private hands? Do you realize that Secre
tary Ballinger has drawn for conserva
tion purposes more than 7,<«"»>,000 acres
since he has become Secretary? These
are fundamental facts in connection with
the current controversy which must be
borne in mind if one would not be misled
by the vast amount of misinformation
which is finding its way into print. • It is
also important to bear in mind that Sec
retary Ballinger has sent to Congress the
first actual conservation bills that have
ever been framed, that these have received
the Indorsement of the President and that
they are part of his legislative programme.
With these facts in mind, it may be pos
sible better to separate the chaff from the
wheat in this Ballinger-Pinchot contro
versy. s
PRESIDENTS VICTORY.— As wa<= fore- ,
shadowed in this column, the House Com
mittee on Interstate Commerce v,.j, O ited to
day the administration interstate commerce I
bill, including the provision for a special
commerce court, the vote in committee
standing 10 to S. This constitutes a ,
marked victory for the President, who has
all along insisted on the creation of such a
court. It is in line with the position of
President Roosevelt, who contended when
the rate bill was before the Senate that
m
should act upon it for the best interests of
our whole country.
The main reason why the citizens of New-
York will pay so large a part of the tax is
that New York City is the chief financial
and commercial centre of a great country.
■?\ith vast resources and industrial activity.
For many years Americans engaged in de
veloping the wealth of all parts of the
country have been going to New York to
secure capital and market their securities
and to buy their supplies. Thousands of
men who have amassed fortunes in all
sorts of enterprises in other states have
gone to New York to live because they like
the life of the city or becaCse their distant
enterprises require representation at ihe
financial centre. The incomes of New York
are in a great measure derived from the
country at large A continual stream of
wealth sots toward the great city from the
mines and manufactories and railroads out
side of New York. The United States is
no longrr a mere group of separate com
mimities embraced in a political union; it
has become a product of organic growth, a
vast industrial organization covering and
including the whole country, and the rela
tion of New York City to the whole organi
zation of which it is a part is the great
source of he: wealth and the chief reason
why her citizens will pay so great a part
of an income tax.
We have the wealth because behind the
city stands the country. We ought to be
willing to share the burdens of the national
government in the same proportion in
which we share its benefits.
The circumstances that originally justi
fied the establishment of the rule of ap
portionment in ihe Constitution have lo,ng
since passed awaV. It is universally con
ceded that it* application to existing condi
tions would be so un.iust and inequitable, as
to be Impossible. The power of taxation
which the rule makes it impossible for the
natioi? to exercise may be again, as it has
once been, vital to the preservation of na
tional existence. It would be most un
fortunate if the several states of the Union
were to insist upon the continuance of this
unjust and useless limitation upon the nec
essary powers originally and wisely grant
ed to the national government.
With kind regards. 1 am always very
sincerely yours, ELJHU ROOT.
Hon. Frederick M. Ija\enport. Senate
Chamber Albany.
Senator Davenport's Comment.
After reading the Root iettcr Sen
ator Davenport paid a glowing tribute
both to Senator Root and Governor
Hughes. He said that a difference of
legal opinion between two men of the
calibre of Senator Root and Governor
Hughes had in it no element whatever
of personal controversy; yet nothing
could be clearer, he said, than the line
of cleavage between the two opinion. 0 .
••Speaking for myself." said Senator
Davenport. "I do not regard ihis dif
ference of view between legal experts,
important as it is. afl at all funda
mental in the final determination of this
isnie. I think it will turn out to be
pretty nearly ihe universal opinion of
the economists and experts in prac
tical finance that the Governor's fears
are ill grounded. No harm can come
u<> the credit <>f state or municipal
bonds through the levying of a general
income tax.
"There remains. <>f course, t ho selfish
consideration th;<t the state of New
York, with its great ability, would be
called i>n t<> \ray a considerable por
tion nf an Income tax. But thi.s un
worthy consideration is su thoroughly
demolished by Senator Root In the clos
ing paragraph of his letter that here
after it ought in hide its diminished
head. 1 '
In the Assembly the letter was read
from I lie clerk? desk. In both houses
it was ordered printed as a legislative
document and referred to the Judiciary
committees.
In the Assembly th ■ minority leader,
Mr. Ftisbie, expressed thanks on behalf
of the Democrats for Senator Root's
-splendid exposition <>f the right and
■iut.v of the .state in accordance with the
good old Democratic doctrine." He
called attention to the fad that William
.1. Bryan h;<<i advocated such a measure
years ag<>.
TO PROTECT AMERICAN JEWS.
President Takes Up Question of Pass
ports in Russia.
Washington, Feb. 81.- President Taft has
Instructed the American Ambassador at St.
Petersburg, Mr, Rockhill, to make strong
representations to Cue Russian government
looking to the Inviolability of American
passports In that country. Mr. Rockhil!, it
is stated, will take the matter up person
ally with the Russian Emperor. , .
The publishers of two of the most Influ
ential Jewish newspapers In this country,
i•• a Kamurky and Jacob Knphii
stcin. of New York, took up this nat
ter with the President to-day, and told him
that for a number of years the Jews of
this country bad been endeavoring i" ob
tain action which would give American «■■■
iztns freedom "from political arrests In Rus
sia. President Taft said thai he was per
sonally <ltepi> interested In the matter
and that he Int.] given Mif. (•'"khlll the
instructions referred to above as one of the
most important feature! of his mission -to
Russia.
either there should be no court review or
there should be a special court to re
view interstate commerce cases, in order to
avoid delay. The members of .tat commit
tee who stood by the President when the
measure came to a vote to-day •»*>• Rep
resentatives Wanger, Esch. Townsond. Ken
nedy, Knowland, Hubbard, Miller. Stafford.
i ].!»•!■ and Wash burn. Representatives
Mann, of Illinois, and Stevens, of Minnesota,
voted with the six Democrat? against th«
measure. It is predicted that th*ie will be
an Interesting: and protracted debate on the
measure on the floor of the House, but the
leaders have pledged themselves to the
President in its support and he has no
doubt regarding its final enactment.
roSTAf.. SAVlNGS.— Republican Senators
held a protracted conference over the postal
savings bank bill to-day, it was attended
by Senator Carter, in charge of the bill,
and Senators Root. (Vane, Gamble, Smoot.
Crawford. Jones. ( *urtis, Sutherland an<J
Borah. No decision was reached at the
coi.ference. and another will be held, pror
ably to-morrow. It is expected, however,
that as a result of these conferences an
agreement will be reached whereby th*
bill will receive the solid Republican sup
port, which is what the President wishes,
inasmuch as the proposition was pledged
in the national platform. Senator Carter
is working indefatigably to secure harmony
on all amendments and he believes that
his efforts will be crowned with success.
TO RAISE TUX MAINE. The Tfous=e
Committee on Naval Affairs has decided to
I report favorably the bill of Representative
Loud providing for the raising of the bat
tleship Maine, which lies in Havana llar
i DOT. There were a numher of bills before
the committee, but Secretary Meyer ex
pressed a preference for the Loud bill, and
I that is the bill which will be. reported. It.
J authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to ari
' vertise for bids on the work and provides
| that the >Yesident shall cause to be con
i eluded a convention with Cuba permitting
i the work to be performed. It is not cx
i pected that there will be any serious oppo
! sition to the bill on the floor of the House.
a. g. h.
MR. FA FT TO EDITORS.
2'nlks to American Association
of Foreign X ens papers.
[From The Tribune Bureau. I
Washington, Feb. 28.— "I visited the East
Side in New York about two years ago. and
I was exceedingly impressed with the face
that all that Jewish population there had
recognized the opportunity that this coun
try offered to them, and that the young
men and women who had attended the pub
lic schools and who had settled in that pr.rt
of New York had appreciated to- the full
the benefits that this country conferred,
and that there was no part of the country
In which the real, true spirit of "patriotism
prevailed more deeply than there."
The President said this to the representa
t; s of three hundred and fifty foreign
newspapers published in the United States
who called at the White House to protest
against the proposed Immigration legisla
tion now pending in Congress. Objection
was mttde to the Hayes and Overman bills.
L.. M. Hammering, president of the Amer
ican Association of Foreign Newspapers,
who spoke for the delegation, objected to
the provisions of these two bills, providing
for an educational test, an increase ef the
head tax and exclusion of all males over
sixteen years of age who do not possess $.&.
Mr. Hammering said that the foreign ed
itors did not object to the exclusion of
morally and physically undesirable immi
grants, but seriously objected to keeping
out of the United States any desirable per
sons. The editor called the President's
attention to the fact that »)5 per cent of the
farmers owning farms and working as farm
laborers came from Europe during the last
thirty years, that about 69 per cent of the
590.000 miners mining the coal to operate
the great industries came from abroad,
that 69 per cent of the 580,000 steel and iron
workers in the United Statt-s are immi
grants, and that 90 per cent of the labor
employed for the last thirty years in con
structing and repairing the railways of this
country came from Europe.
At the conclusion of Mr. Hammering's
plea in behalf of the immigrants President
Taft made an address. He said he was not
acquainted with the details of the bills to
which his callers objected, and promised
upon the receipt of the bills from Congress
that he would send for them, and would
again listen to whatever objections they
wished to make before attaching his signa
ture. "It is possible that I shall differ
with you," said the President, "but I think
that where a hearing Is given a safer con
clusion is likely to be reached.
"In going about this country thirteen
thousand miles, as I did last year," con
tinued Mr. Taft, "the thing which im
pressed Pie more than anything else was
the fact that the process through which we
had gone, of welcoming Immigrants from
everywhere and mixing them and amal
gamating them with our population, had
produced ;i distinct type of American, as
distinguished from any of the people of
which that type was made up, and that,
therefore, were we to impose unjust bur
dens and slop immigration we should go
back on thai which up to this time had
enabled us to b<- a great people."
The Secretary of Commerce and J.abur
was a member of the conference.
man Eli out of race.
President Will Not Make Him
Surveyor of Port.
Washington, Feb. 28. -It was learned to
day ihat Presiden 1 Taft had practically
ghen up the Idea of appointing Frederick
11. Bugher, Deputy I'olicp Commissioner of
New York, as Surveyor of the Port there.
Kver .since it was- intimated that ilip
President might n.ake this appointment
there had been a storm of protest from
the Republican leaders in New York. OB
the ground that Mr. Bugher was a Demo
i rat. Mr. Bugher hah been In Washington
since >esterday and haii a talk with Presi
dent. Taft aboii! the matter of his appoint
ment.
Senator Root and several Congressmen
also saw ihe President to-day. The mat
ter Of selecting a successor to Surveyor
t'larkson is not a pressing vw, as tiie iat
fr's term does not expire until April IS.
The New York County organization, it
is said, will not make any recommenda
tions for the place, as it is considered that
It Is distinctly a Senatorial appointment
The Republican Congressmen from New
York City some some time ago recom
mended to the Senators the appointmtnt of
Richard Parr. Deputy Surveyor, who waa
Instrumental In exposing the sugar weigh
ing frauds.
It is understood thot until he ga\e up tiie
idea. Of appointing Mr. Bugher the Presi
dent hari i«>t .seriously considered any othei
names, and that his miint is entirely open
on tho proposition. He ha* until early In
April to make a choli c
Now that Mr. iiugher is not to become
Surveyor it is not unlikely that in the
course of time he will succeed Commis
sioner Hake as tlu> head of I lie Police 1 >» -
partment. It ha- been understood that
Mayor Gayn'or has wore than once asked
.Mr. Hughei. who is nov. Deputy Police
Commissioner, buy he would receive a sug
gestion to take charge of the. department.
To this Mr. Bugber ha:-. III! to reply that
he was i:..t in any post* m to mak-.: a deci
sion at the time It Is thought that the
reorganisation of th. Police Department,
which Major Oaynor has been working out
for some time, has been held up until the
future of Mr. Bughcr was inure certain.
d^ Revolution
W in baking methods which gave the
f . world Uneeda Biscuit also resulted in a
Revelation
«* in soda cracker quality. You
Jjf* realize this the moment you
p^ k open the royal purple package
(Lr a sold Xk) nd fin f Sod * f ker S ° temPt "
ing and good that they cannot
k resisted.
jm*^ Uneeda
mw Biscuit A
EC B^C°lT L
I^^^ COMPANY y^^
MUST GO TO COURT
SENA TORS LIA BLE.
Justice Wright Rules That
Then Are Not Above Laic.
Washington, Feb. 28.— Justice Wright, in
the Supreme Court of the District of Co
lumbia, to-day decided thut the court acted
entirely within its authority when it issued
the writ of mandamus ordering the joint
Committee on Printing of Congress to
show cause why it should not consider tiie
bid of tiie Valley Paper Company, of
Holyoke, .Mass. This means that the Sen
ate members of the committee will be com
pelled to appear in court, either in person
or by counsel.
In a decision which he took two hours to
read from the bench Justice Wright quoted
law and precedents in cases and declared
that to have refused to issue the mandamus
because some of the persons sued occu
pied the exalted position of Senator "would
have been to betray the law."
"No man in this country is so high that
he is higher than the law," declared Jus
tice Wright. "All officers are creatures of
the law, and even the government of the
United States is less than the law. What
is there in the exalted position of a Sen
ator which prevents any citizen from lay
ing what he believes to be an injury before
the bar of justice?"
The justice announced that his decision
made no attempt to dispose of the merits
of the case, but was merely to hold that
the court was art ing within the authority
which had been conferred upon it by Con
gress itself, and was interpreting the very
law which Congress had created.
Members of the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary, which committee advised
the action of the Senate in ordering its
members of the joint Committee on Print
ing to ignore tiie order of the District
Court, ssira ir that these Senators are not in
contempt, but only in default. The gen
eral impression was that the court would
continue the case instituted by the Valley
Paper Company and accept the s-iswer of
the House members of tiie joint committee
The Senate members feel certain that
the paper company's protest will be re
jected on its merits, and that the question
of jurisdiction wiil not, therefore, be
prosecuted to adjudication by the Supreme
Court of the United States. Senator
Smoot, chairman of tiie Senate Committee
on Printing, stated Tiiat he would make no
move whatever, as thf whole, question was
for the Senate.
FOR PAT EXT (OIRT.
Bill in Senate Provides Special
Tribunal for These Cases.
[Prom The TrißuiM Bureau 1
Washington, Feb. 28.— Senator Brown
ntade a favorable report from the commit
tee o patents to-day on the bill to create
a new court which sh;tll exercise the juris
diction now exercised by ihe circuit
courts of appeal in patent causes and
Which shall have no other jurisdiction. The
court is to consist ot five Judges the chief
justice to be appointed by tbe President
for life. The four associate justices are
to be designated by the Chief Justice «.>f ;he
Supreme < '< >u rt from amoii^; the federal
district ..nd circuit judges, for six ye.ir
terms. The judges so designated are to be
puid additional compensation during the
periorl that they arc away from their dis
tricts or circuits.
Senator Krowi: points out 'i>at under the
existing system there are nine courts of
last resort hi patent cases, with the result
that there are great confusion and uncer
tainty in respect to patent titles. A patent
may be decreed valid in eight circuits, but
if In the ninth the couri declares it in
valid the patentee loses all the britents of
the decisions in the eight others because hi
the ninth circuit any bod] :n:iv manufacture
the article an<i se!i ii in any part or the •
United states.
< >ne of ti>e unique features of Senator
Brown's report is that it raises the ques
tion <if the constitutionality <>f the meas
ure which is reported for passage. Two
constitutional points are raised, one being
tin power of the Chief Justice to designate
the four associate judges of the ii<'w court,
inasmuch us the power t" appoint judges ia
vested in the President i>y th>- Constitution,
The second point is whether it is possible
to Increase the salaries of the Judges
while they are serving '>n the patent court
and to withdra the increase when they
return to their districts <v- circuits, Mr.
Brown suggests t.:at ihis may i>e regarded
as a reduction oi the salary of s federal
., '!■ Ik 1 * during his term, which Is prohibited
bj Ibe Con > it ..; ion. -
HARD SMOKER LIVES TO BE 110. t
Mllfor.i, N. H., Feb. Ten year past
the century mark, Michael Lcavitt died t
here to-day. Up to » year ago be walked :
loiik distances and <li<! considerable, work;
l.fHvitt was an inveterate .smoker.
BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS
The latest publications may be
had at the Mercantile Library,
Aator Pictce and Eighth Street.
Branch, 141 B'way, Room 715.
Books delivered at residences.
FOR BY SIX ESS BOARD.
Senate Passes Aldrich Bill Cre
ating a System Bureau.
f From The Tribune Bureau. l
Washington, Feb. 28.— Th« only business
of importance transacted at to-day's ses
sion of the Senate was the passage of the
Aldrich bill, creating a government busi
ness methods commission. Various amend
ments to the bill offered by Senator New
lands were voted down, and no rollcall
on the passage of the measure was de
manded.
The bill provides for tiie appointment of
five Senators and five Representatives to
inquire into and to report to Congress art
the earliest date practicable what changes
are necessary or desirable in the methods of
transacting the business of the govern
ment or the lawa relating thereto.
It is the belief of the Senate leaders tiiat
the commission will h<> üble to work out
plans which will result in a material saving
in the running expenses of the government.
When the bill was before the Senate, a
week ago. Senator Aldrich said that if he.
as a business man. were permitted to run
tie government he would be able to caTcct
a saving of y!00.<»0.000 a year.
HEIKE CASE GOES OVER.
Court to Render Decision on Immunity
Plea in a Week's Time.
Washington. Feb. :X.-After a sharp con
flict between th© counsel concerned, the
Store Ready at 8:15 A. M. Eight Car Lines
Directly on the Interborough Subway Each Way to Store
rr ' MMM gy o^ nil iiajr* of TTana-
W B^— Jt r maker »w9 In To
__-, . ATT/lli Afttn LOj* ni R ht\. Evening TH-
Things 'lAIIiII AHIIUJTu/F tim '= im f nnr Mail.
V\l "7 *Or K*«Hnß r»*t and
ReadY M m Brooklyn Standard
w / New York, March 1, 1910
It Took Six Months to Prepare
This March China Sale. So
It Is No Mushroom
As much of it as can be put on the counters at once will be
exhibited and sold today in the great China Store, Second Gallery,
New Building. As assortments are depleted they will be quickly
renewed by fresh lots from the invoice.
This china comes from such celebrated Limoges potteries as
THEODORE HAVILAND, POUYAT. CHAS. FIELD HAVI
LAND. REDON and other French factories, besides less expensive
dinner sets from good American works.
Fancy china and bric-a-brac will be sold for 25 per cent less
than usual.
An importer's sample "line" of RICHLY DECORATED
FRENCH FANCY CHINA including chop dishes, cake plates,
salad bowls, sugar and cream sets, cups and saucers and various
plates, will be sold at exactly fifty per cent less. He can afford to
sell it for that. We took all he had and there is probably no other
store that could take so large a quantity at once.
Some Market Prices
Specimen prices for French dinner sets of 100 to 114 pieces,
some including BREAD AND BUTTER PLATES, are
Redon sets at $22.50, instead of $32.50; $20 instead of $30.
Chas. Field Haviland sets $20. instead of $35.
Theodore Haviland sets. $17.50 instead of $25; $70. instead
of $100.
American sets $8.50 and $10, instead of $15 and $18.
Samples of fancy china, rich in design and new in shape, include
Chop dishes, at 50c to $2.50: regularly $1.25 to $6.
Cake plates, 50c to $2; regularly $1 to $4.
Salad bowls. 50c to $2; regularly $1.25 to $4.50, etc.
Beautiful Cut Glass With Ail-Over Cuttings
American cut glass is as fine as is made anywhere. It is
sold by the best shops in Paris. London and Vienna, as well as
in New York.
Eight of the highest grade American cut glass manufacturers
have contributed cut glass to sell at 25 to 50 per cent less than
our usual low prices. We use the entire output of one factory and
keep the other seven busy most of the year, so they are as anxious
as we to give our customers something of extra value during this
month.
Cut glass values are so many that we can instance only a few.
Bowls, 8 to 10 inches. $1.75 to $11 : regularly $2.75 to $15.
Flower vases, $1.50 to $7.50; regularly $2.50 to $10.50.
Water jugs, $2.50 to $4 : regularly $3.75 to $7.
Sugar and cream sets, $1.85 to $4.50; regularly $2.75 to $7.
Footed bonbon compotes, sl.7s t054.50; regularly s2.so t056.50.
Celery trays, $1.50 to $3; regularly $2.50 to $5. '
Olive dishes. 60c to $1 : regularly $1 to $1.75.
/I A
Formerly A fT/% // /f 111 /t Afl / Broadway.
AT. Stewart & Co. HA [111 /lIIfUjNW > Fourth avenue,
VuWj/L'VWV V */0f E 'S hth Tenth St.
j Supreme Court of the United States to-day
declined to vacate the order Justice Lurton
Issued on Friday last staying the trial of
Charles R. Heike, a former official of the
American Sugar Refining Company, until
the Supreme Court reviews the decision o!
the Circuit Court las the Southern District:
of New York in regard to his immunity
plea.
Heike is barged nith conspiracy ss de
fraud tha ajcNraraaaaai in tht weighing of
snaai imported. The esMsrl did. haasvvajr,
take the niatt-r under consideration, with
the possibility that it may ia.ttr vacate, the
order.
The subject was brought before the court
by Solicitor General Bowers. He asked
that the order be vacated so that Heike
might be tried to-morrow "with his subor
dinate clerks," who were indicted with,
him.
Ceuigs & ilraham ar.d JL R. fltaaeißasM
appeared as counsel for Heike, a:
posed the reajßMajs.
A sharp conflict arose as to whether thera
was a judgment in the case. The Solicitor
General offered to show a certified copy of
the proceedings, so that the opposing coun
sel might point out a judgment.
"I don't propose to accept your record,"
retorted Mr. Graham.
Although eoaasel tm Bajfefl wanted thre©
weeks in which to print the record, they
were given one am oil by the court to print
a reply to the request of the government.
It is understood the trial of both Heik*
and the clerks will be held up for a week
in order lo give; the Supreme ''o>:r: an op
portunity to act.