Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/432

 Ctje


 * 1) reen

Published Monthly, at $4.00 per Annum.

Bag.

Single Numbers, 50 Cents.

Communications in regard to the contents of the Magazine should be addressed to the Editor, Horace W. Fuller, Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of inter est to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosities, facetia, anec dotes, etc. THE GREEN BAG. "income tax" business. Editor " Green Bag." Sir: — Your " Disgusted Layman "is immense ly mired by the wisdom lawyers are shooting off about one side or the other of the latest decision of the U. S. Supreme Court on the income tax. Of course as long as it is only polemics between lawyer and lawyer, the layman needn't care, but as he's the subject of the matter, and is the final gainer or loser, according to what is the constitu tion and what isn't, he thinks that the lawyers ought to talk so that he can understand. Now whether there is a difference as to " directness" between a tax on land and on income derived from land, is mighty hazy to a layman, and a "Disgusted Layman " suspects that there's some "Common Law" at the bottom of that, otherwise it wouldn't be so deep and incomprehensible. But the funny thing to a layman is that not a lawyer considers the matter in the light of the original deal on the matter. Wasn't it the fact that some States — the wealthy ones — wouldn't go into the Union unless there was a bargain that the poorer States shouldn't be able to tax them (the wealthy ones) out of sight? And wasn't that provision for bidding direct taxes, unless "accordin'to popilation," the bargain that made the Union possible? Then how in sense do taxes on whiskey and to bacco pass through? Aren't they " direct? " There is nothing about " in accordance to population" in those taxes. Of course times have changed, and if the Union was to fly to pieces now it is not likely that this " direct " bargain would be insisted on, but that don't seem to change the fact that there was a bargain, and, as a layman looks at it, "a bargain's a bargain " in constitution-making as

well as in a horse deal. So after all, isn't the fact of the bargain of more force than fiddling round on fine distinctions? and, if the bargain is now a bad one, won't it be better to change it than finesse about delicate discriminations? Your Disgusted Layman.

FACETIÆ. "Now, Mr. Breeves," asked the chairman of the investigating committee, " is it not true that you took the case of Jones v. Brown on a condi tional fee — that you agreed to accept a part of the amount recovered as your fee?" "It is not true, sir," replied the lawyer, " I stipulated that I should have all of it and $500 besides." "Gentlemen," said the chairman, " I fail to see where Mr. Brown has been guilty of unpro fessional conduct at all."

The following anecdote is vouched for by the stenographer, and will be appreciated more es pecially by lawyers, says the Rochester " Post-Ex press" : — At a term of the Circuit Court, held not long since in one of the up-river counties, a horse case was on trial, and a well-known horseman was called as a witness. Counsel : " Well, sir, you saw this horse?" Witness : " Yes, sir, I " — "What did you do?" "I jest opened his mouth to find out his age, an 1 sez to him, sez I, ' Old feller, I guess you're purty good yet.'" Opposing Counsel : " Stop! Your Honor, I object to any conversation carried on between this witness and the horse when the plaintiff was not present." The objection was sustained. 397