OCR Text |
Show HHPs High Idea of Ethics Why He Would - Not Present Case Against the Incomje Tax Clause of the Wilson Bill to Supreme Su-preme Court. Now that David Bennett Hill, three times governor of and one term United States senator from New York, has passed away, it is possible to narrate several incidents connected with his career that have both historic his-toric importance and dramatic Interest. Inter-est. They have remained unchron-icled unchron-icled hitherto because of Governor Hill's policy of complete silence in all things political relating to himself, a policy that one of the staunchest friends he ever had Judge Alton B Parker declared recently caused much unnecessary criticism to be heaped upon its author. In 1894 the house of representatives passed the tariff bill now historically known as the Wilson bill. It contained con-tained a clause providing for the levying levy-ing of an income tax without doing that In accordance with the census; that is to say, in proportion to the population of each state. Senator Hill not only regarded this clause of the income tax as unconstitutional, because the constitution provides that an Income tax must be levied according accord-ing to the census, but, in addition, he felt that were a tax of that kind levied lev-ied and collected, the tendency would be seriously to threaten the equality of the states in their representation in their federal senate. Senator Hill therefore prepared a speech which has now gone upon record as one of the ablest of all the speeches delivered deliv-ered in the senate since the time of the Civil war. In this matter he stood almost alone among his Democratic associates, and the senate passed the Wilson bill, much amended, but with the original Income tax clause unchanged. un-changed. This was the tariff bill which President Cleveland refused to sign, characterizing it as a bill of perfidy and dishonor. After the bill had become law, it was determined to make a speedy test of the constitutionality of the income tax clause, and when those who had united to forward this important Judicial Ju-dicial proceeding consulted as to who, among the lawyers of the United States, could make the ablest argument argu-ment before the Supreme court, all were of the opinion that Senator Hill was the man. The senator was therefore there-fore approached and asked, practically practic-ally In these words, whether he would accept a retainer to argue the case: "Senator, we have unanimously agreed that you, better than any other lawyer of whom we have knowledge, would make a convincing argument before the Supreme court. We have therefore decided to ask you to accept ac-cept a retainer simply to make that argument, and we are prepared to offer of-fer you a retainer of $5,000." For some moments the senator was silent He seemed to be considering the proposition from all sides. At last he said: "I should greatly like to make the argument before the Supreme court I would be willing to make It without with-out a retainer; I regard the subject as of vital consequence. But It does not seem to me as though It would square with my view of the ethics of senatorial service if I were to accept your retainer. I made my appeal as a senator to my colleagues In the senate. I spoke with earnestness and in all sincerity. A majority of the senate, however, disagreed with me. Now, if I, having been defeated in the senate, were to make an argument before the Supreme court upon this Issue, it would Seem as though, having been defeated In the senate, I at once resorted to the Supreme court. No, I do not think that I would be justified In accepting this retainer, although I say again that I should greatly like to make the argument." After this refusal the party sought other counsel, who argued the case before the Supreme court, and won It And when the opinion was read It was discovered that it practically adopted the line of argument made by Hill in the federal senate. (Copyright, 1910. by E. J. Edwards. All Rights Reserved.) |