16 INCOME-TAX DECISION Reimbursement May Be Asked for Taxes Under the Old Law. MILLIONS WERE PAID HERE. Court of Claims the Tribunal to Which Appeal for Redress Should Be Made. When the Supreme Court of the United States declared the income-tax law of 1894 unconstitutional many people inquired at once if the decision was not in effect a declaration that the income-tax legislation enacted during the war was directly con trary to the constitution. If the Supreme Court is now right in overthrowing a law taxing incomes it was wrong when it sustained a law imposing a tax of that character. The decision is re markable in this, that it reverses a broad principle under which hundreds of mil lions of dollars have been collected from the people of this Nation and paid into the National treasury. In the argument of the case when the issue was pending in the United States Supreme Court Attorney-General Olney raised this very point, maintaining that persons who paid the tax under the old law would be entitled to relief were the new law declared unconstitutional. The moral obligation of the Government to reimburse the people who paid the former tax can hardly be questioned in view of the recent decree of the court, and if steps are not taken for reimbursement by many who did pay it will be indeed strange and out of the order of things. No decision handed down from the Su preme Court since the famous Dred Scott case has created more profound and wide ■pread comment throughout the country than the one to which reference is here made. In San Francisco a deep interest in the Bubject is taken, not only by lawyers but by citizens of every vocation. The income tax was perhaps but an incident of the war in Eastern cities, but in San Francisco it was a great event. The records of the Internal Revenue Department will show that here in the San Francisco district the ratio of persons paying the ta« to the whole population was greater than in any other city of the United States. More than that the aggregate amount collected was the greatest district collec tion. It is a compliment alike to the loy alty and law-abiding spirit of the commun ity that no resistance to payment was made in the courts or elsewhere. There is no record or suspicion of perjury having been committed to evade payment. San Francisco paid more internal revenue tax than all other parts of the coast put together, and the incomes of the people as reported to the Federal Assessor were larger than those of any other revenue dis trict, not even excepting the Third Congressional District of New York, which had a poulation of 200,000 and was reputed to be the wealthiest in the country, as it contained the residences of many of the merchant princes of tiie commercial metropolis of the Nation. In 1864 the gold incomes of San Francisco amounted to $13,600,000, exceeding $20,000, --000 as a currency basis. Out of 20,000 voters, 8000 paid incomes on more than $600 in gold. The average income of these 8000 was $1700. The amount of regular annual 3 per cent income tax paid in the San Francisco dis trict (San Francisco and San Mateo) was $516,000, and the amount of the special in come tax at 5 per cent was $675,000. There are many well-known citizens of California who now recall the cheerful manner in which payments were made, and among them can be mentioned W. W. Montague. William Alvord, Lloyd Tevis, Raphael Weill, Henry Marshall, Sidney Smith, Levi Strauss, W. F. Whittier, Bernard Murphy, M. Castle, General John Hewston, George W. Granniss, James M. McDonald and David Bush. The act of August 5, 1861, imposed a di rect tax and a tax on incomes, but the in come portion of the act never took effect. The first income law under which any tax was collected was the act of July 14, 1862. Under this act the tax was 3 per cent on incomes over $600 and not over $10,000; over $10,000. 5 per cent. Act of March 3, 1865. over $600 and not over $5000 5 per cent ; over $5000, 10 per cent on excess over $5000. Act of March 2, 1867, over $1000, 5 per cent. Act of J uly 14, 1870, over $2000, 2>2 per cent. No income tax was collected under the act of June 30, 1864, as it was amended by the act of March 3, 1865, before it became collectible, but the numerical order of the sections of the act of June 30, 1864, was preserved through all the subsequent amendments until the act of 1870. The income tax expired with assess ment in 1870 of the income of 1869, accord ing to the limitation contained in section 119, but was reimposed with some varia tions and made applicable to the incomes of 1870 and 1871, by the act of July 14, 1870. The following from Eldridge's ''United States Internal Revenue Tax System " is an abstract of the decision of the United States Supreme Court on the old law : It is not competent for Congress, under the constitution of the United States, to impose a tax upon the salary of a judicial officer of a State. (Collector vs. Day, 11th Wall, 113.) The question whether the income tax was a direct tax within the meaning of tlie constitution, elaborately discussed, and by all the authorities reviewed and the de cision of the court stated as follows: "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expre?~ed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains (the income tax) is within the category of an excise or duty." (Sprin ger vs. Lnited States, 12 Otto, 586.) Questions of the validity of a "succession tax," under the act of "June 30, 1864, as amended. In reviewing the question of the constitutionality of this tax, the court Bays that, "whether direct taxes in the sense of th<* constitution comprehended any other tax than a capitation tax and a tax on land is a question not absolutely decided; nor is it necessary to determine it in the present case, as it is expressly decided that the term does not include the tax on income, which cannot be distinguished in principle from a succession tax, such as is involved in the present controversy." Tax held to be constitutional and valid and rightfully levied. (Scholey vs. Rew, 23 Wall, 331.) The principle involved in the income-tax enacted during the war does not differ from that, expressed in the law of 1894, which the court recently set aside. The section expressing the intention of Congress in the law of 1894 reads as follows: Section 27. That from and after the Ist day of January, 1894, and until the Ist day of January, 1900, there shall be assessed, levied collected and paid annually upon the gains, profits and income received iv the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and every person residing therein, whether said gains, profits or income be derived from any kind ot*property, rents, dividends or sal aries or from any profession, trade, em ployment or vocation carried on in the Lnited States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, a tax of 2 per centum on the amount so derived over and above $4000, and a like tax shall be levied, collected and paid annually upon the gains, profits and income from all property owned and of every business, trade or profession car ried on in the United States by persons resid ing without the United States. And the tax herein provided for shall be assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and col lected and paid upon the gains, profits and in come for the year ending the olst day of De cember next preceding the time for the levy ing, collecting and paying of said tax. The point involved in Attorney-General Olney's declaration showing a decision of the Supreme Court overthrowing the income-tax law of 1894 would render illegal the tax on incomes collected from 1563 to 1870, and entitle the persons who paid it to come in now and claim re imbursement, was presented to Attorney J. E. Richards last evening. "It must have escaped Mr. Olney's mind," said Mr. Richards, "that the con stitutionality of the income-tax law passed during the war was tested in the United States Supreme Court. The court held that the constitution conferred the power on the legislative branch of the Govern ment to levy a tax on incomes. "Now the present decision cannot give persons who paid during the war an op portunity to go into the courts for relief in the way of repayment. The only remedy for them that I can see now is before the Court of Claims. No citizen can sue the United States without permission of Con gress, and it is beyond belief that Congress would authorize suits for sums of such magnitude as would be involved herein. And further than that," continued Mr. Richards, "the decision of the court de claring unconstitutional the law of 181 M does not touch the law of 1863. The Su preme Court may reverse itself, but it does not affect taxes collected under the former law. The law of 1863 was declared consti tutional and the decision touching that act was not reversed. The law stood until it was repealed in 1870 or 1872, whenever it was repealed. A person going to the United States and say ing, "You must return this money which you wrongfully collected because the act was illegal." would receive the answer: "If there was no law authorizing the tax to be imposed and collected you made a volun tary gift of the money to the Govern ment. Perhaps the identical person who caused the suit to be instituted for testing the law would say: "I did not pay volun tarily, I went into court asserting that Con gress had no right to impose the tax." He would be answered: "You did go into court, and the highest tribunal in the land affirmed the right of Congress under the constitution to impose the tax. In law you have exhausted your reniedv, but you 'may ask Congress to pass a bill for your relief, or you may file your suit in the Court of Claims." The Court of Claims to which reference was made in the interview with Mr. Richards was created during the war, or just after the close of the struggle, to hear and determine claims of various kinds. The Government, in its hour of necessity, took the property of loyal as well as disloyal citizens, and in the stir and rush of war many vouchers were imperfectly issued, and in many in stances no written evidence was given that property had been appropriated or confis cated. How many millions of dollars were awarded for relief the court records only can tell. It is estimated that San Francisco paid to the Federal Government during the in come-tax era at least $^,000,000. W. W. Montague, who paid tax on a considerable income during^the war, was of the opinion that the first steps to test the sense of the Government on the ques- tion of repayment would not be taken in San Francisco, but held that many people here would get in without much delay if claims for reimbursement were tiled in the East. "Our people in San Francisco," said Mr. Montague, "regarded the income tax as a war measure, justified by the necessities of the Government, and it was paid cheer fully on that principle. That idea was clearly expressed by Justice Field in the introduction of his recent opinion on the tax of 1894. We are now as a nation at peace with all the world, and there is no necessity for straining the constitution to impose a tax, inquisitorial and unpopular, which only a great emergency can justify." A large sum was paid as income tax by Mr. Carroll, who founded the house of Carroll & Carroll, but the younger mem bers of the family, who have succeeded to the business since the death of the founder, have paid little attention to their an cestor's transactions with the Government in the "sixties." G. L. Barker formerly belonged to the firm of Wellman, Peck & Co. and paid his income tax with the others in 1864. Henry L. Dodge of the house of Dodge, Sweeney & Co. was in the "sixties," as now, a prosperous man of affairs. He paid the income tax, as did others, and ro garded the payment as necessary for the preservation of the Government. At that time California could not spare men to re enforce the armies in the lield on the Potomac and Mississippi, but her people had money to contribute and they gave it freely in payment of war taxes and in voluntary contributions to the sanitary fund. For instance, Captain J. B. Thomas gave as much as $250,000 to the sanitary fund. Trenor W. Park and many others gave freely and largely after Thomas Starr King aroused a powerful Union sentiment on this coast. "At one period," said Mr. Dodge, "Cali fornia was trembling on the verge of seces sion. Public sentiment wavered and the press was timid, if not cowardly. A firm and resolute stand on behalf of the Union was not taken by the great masses of the people until the eloquence of King moved them to a sense of their responsibility." P. N. Lilienthal, manager of the Angle- California Bank, doubted very much if the merchants of San Francisco who paid the war income tax would institute proceed i nes to recover the money so paid to the Government. He remarked: |"Michael Reese and Nicholas Luning are dead and the merchants now living would not want the public to know what small incomes they possessed at that time." Henry L. Payot, now of the house of Payot, Upham & Co., was in business dur ing the war and paid his share of the tax. He was not in town yesterday, but his partner, Mr. TJ-pham, was sure "that the amount paid was not large enough to jus tify proceedings in the Court of Claims to recover it. He was of the opinion, more over, that Mr. Payot paid it cheerfully, be cause the Government needed money, and would not ask for repayment now. Mr. Sadler of the firm of Mau, Sadler & Co. was in business on this coast in the "sixties." He paid the tax, but the amount contributed was so small that it passed out of his mind. The tax was paid by Holbrook, Merrill i rollers weighing at least 250 pounds fo: each inch in width; but owing to the extremely heavy traffic conducted on San Francisco's streets double this weight should be used here. Even then the weight will hardly equal the pressure that is sometimes brought on the finished pavement surface by some of our loaded trucks. "After the sub-foundation has been ex cavated and trimmed to proper contour and thoroughly rolled, a foundation of concrete is laid. As a matter of fact, this foundation is the pavement, the usual bitumen or basalt-block covering being merely the wearing surface. Too much importance cannot be given to this con sideration. "The concrete must be thick enough to readily diffuse any extreme and unequal load that may come on it at any on< noint, to that extent acting both as gir<'* -*j will look 100 per * ent pret * tier wheQ yoa remove that :/ air rom oiir ** face. READ THESE TESTIMONIALS SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 29, 1895. This is to certify that I have subjected the Antoinette Depilatory to a thorough chemical analysis and I find it to b« superior, to all other ' preparations ' for - the removal of superfluous hair. It li without the least irritating; action upon ' th* most delicate skin. W. T. WENZEIX, Analytical Chemist. This Is to certify that I know Professor W. T. Wenzell and know him to be correct In every de- tail. M.H. LOGAN, Ph.Q.,M-D. This Depilatory is WARRANTED not to stimulate the growth of the hair. Price SI 50. - TRIAL, SAMPLES of three of my complexion specialties for 5O cents. ■- Enough to last 2 or 3 weeks. Just; what you require. _ r^ HE. MARGHAND, * Hair and Complexion Specialist, - 131 POST STREET, ROOMS 32-36, Taber's Entrance. Telephone 1349. W. L. Douglas ISTHEBB3T. >tf!iP^*|bs3. CORDOVAN , MffiM^' J\ rRINCHAENAMtUXUCAJJ". jg||^||l ♦3.5PP0L1CE.3 soles. x^- sSB&J I * exTllA ri •«• s » TJkssffit& 2. <■>> European plan. Rooms 50c to 31 50 per day, » to sB per week, $8 to $30 per month;. tree bathil not ana cold water every room: tira slates la overs room; elevator rusa ail oight, «"«>*#