mafluo,) JO Ajqrj
The News and Observer
VOL. XXXVIII. NO. 65.
TTKII [L/ftlßffilSTr ©DKMIL&TrOCoM ®F &SOT MUnTDD ©ATOMEm IMDO’.
INCOME TAX DECISION
THE SUPREMECOURT EQUALLY
DIVIDED AS TO ITS CONSTI
TUTIONALITY.
BUT TWO IMPORTANT FEATURES GO
The Tax ou Rents and State and Muni
cipal Ilonds Declared to be Uncon
stitutional—The Court Room Crowd
ed and the Opinion Read by Chief
Justice Fuller—Justices Field and
White Read Independent Dissenting
Opinions—No Rehearing Asked.
Washington, April B.— The announce
ment of the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States on the in
come tax to day was made in the pres
ence of a crowded court room, the spec
tators’ lobby being thronged to its ut
most capacity.
Public interest in the case had drawn
an attendance every decision day since
the argument took place, that has taxed
the power and ingenuity of the officials
to care for. Among those within the
rail to-day were Attorney General
Olney, Assistant Henry and Mr. W. D.
Guthrie, of New York, who took part in
the argument; J. M. Wilson, of Wash
ington, of counsel for J. G. Moore who
sought an injunction to restrain Inter
nal Revenue Commissioner Miller from
proceeding to carry out the law; Sena
tor Hill of New York, who so persistent
ly fought the insertion of the tax provi
sion in the tariff law; ex-Secretary of the
Treasury Bout well, Comptroller of the
Treasury; Senator Smith and Hunton,
ex-Attorney Gen. Garland, Hon. G. C.
Gorham and a great many of Attorneys
more or less interested in the action 0“
the court.
The members of the court except Mr.
Justice Jackson, entered the chamber
promptly at noon. A few cases of
minor importance were disposed of, and
the Chief J astice announced at the con
clusion of the sitting on Thursday the
court would adjourn over Good Friday,
and several orders by the court, after
which the case of the day was read by
him.
Chief Justice Fuller Reads Opinionr
He said, in an almost painful still
ness: “I am charged with the duty of
announcing the opinion and judgement
of the court in the case of Chas. Pollock
vs. the Farmer's Loan and Trust Com
pany.
The conclusions of the court were
stated as follows:
1. That by the constitution federal
taxation is divided into two great clas
ses: Direct taxes and duties, imposts
and excises.
2. That the imposition of direct taxes
is governed by the rule of apportion
ment among the several States, accord
ing to numbers, and the imposition of
duties, imposts and excises by the rule
of uniformity throughout the United
States.
3. That the principle that taxation and
representation go together was intended
to be and was prescribed in the consti
tution by the establishment of the role
of apportionment among the several
States,so that such apportionment should
be according to numbers in each State.
4. That the States surrendered this
power to levy imposts and to regulate
commerce to the general government
and gave it the concurrent power to
levy direct taxes in reliance on the pro
tection afforded by the rules prescribed,
and that the compromises of the consti
tution cannot be disabused by legislative
action.
5. That these conclusions result from
the text of the constitution, and are sup
ported by the historical evidence fur
nished by the circumstances surrounding
the framing aad adoption of that instru
ment, and the views of those who framed
and adopted it.
6. That the understanding and ex
pectation at the time of the adoption of
the constitution was that direct taxes
would not be levied by the government
except under pressure of extraordinary
exigency, and such has been the practice
down to August 15, 1894. If the power
to do so is to be exercised as an ordinary
and usual means of supply, that fact fur
nishes an additional reason for circum
spection in disposing of the present case.
7. That taxes on real estate belong
to the class of direct taxes and that the
taxes on the rent or income of real es
tate, which is the incident of its owner
ship, belong to the same class.
8. That by no previous decision of
this court has this question been adju
dicated to the contrary of the conclu
sions now announced. That so much of
the act of August 15, 1894, as attempts
to impose a tax upon the rent or income
of real estate without apportionment is
invalid.
The court is further of opinion that
the act of August loth, 1894, is invalid
so far as it attempts to levy a tax upon
the income derived from municipal
bonds. As a municipal corporation is
the representative of the State and one
of the instrumentalities of the State
government, the property and revenues
of municipal corporations are not the
subjects of federal taxation, nor is the
income derived from State, county and
municipal securities, since taxation on
the interest therefrom operates on
the power to borrow before it
is exercised and has a sensible
influence on the contract, and therefore,
such a tax is a tax on the power of -.the
States and their instrumentalities to
borrow money and consequently repug
nant to the constitution.
Upon each of the other questions
argued at the bar, to-wit:
1. Whether the void provisions as to
rents and income from real estate invali
dates the whole act?
2. Whether as to the income from
personal property as such, the act is un
constitutional as laying direct taxes ?
3. Whether any part of the tax if
not considered as a direct tax is invalid
for want of uniformity on either of the
grounds suggested ?”
The Justices who heard the argument
are equally divided and therefore no
opinion is expressed.
The result is that the decree of the
Circuit Court is reversed and the cause
remanded with directions to enter a de
cree in favor of complainant in respect
only of the voluntary payment of the
taxes on the rents and income of real
estate aud that which it holds in trust,
and on the income from municipal bonds
owned or so held by it.
The Courts and the Constitution.
The Chief Justice said that the juris
diction of the courts of equity to prevent
diversion of funds by breach of trust or
illegal payment of the funds had been
frequently affirmed by the court. The
questioned was not raised in the court
below, but bad been explicitly waived on
the argument of the case, and the court
felt justified in proceeding to a decision
of the case on its merits. He said that
the power to decide a law unconstitu
tional was used with reluctance, but the
responsibility could not be evaded when
the necessity arose. The contentions
respecting this law were: (1) That a tax
on rents was a tax on real estate, and
that not being laid according to appoint
ment, it was invalid; (2) that
it was not uniform, and a violation of
the constitutional requirement that such
taxes shall be laid with uniformity. Un
der this head came the exceptions in
favor of those persons who were not in
possession of an income of $4,000, of
mutual insurance companies, savings
banks, and partnerships, all organized
for and doing the same business as that
of corporations authorized by the States.
These exceptions, it was held, were arbi
trary and caprabious, and not based
upon sound public policy; (3) that in
comes from investments in States and
municipal bonds could not be taxed.
The Chief Justice preceeded to a con
sideration of the constitutional require
ments with respect of the imposition of
the two forms of taxation, direct and in
direct, and said that the framers of the
constituzign intended to make the con
sent of those who were expected to pay,
essential to the validity of any tax.
They had just came out of a conflict
upon the great principle of taxation with
representation, and they were intended
to go together—that Congress should so
impose a tax that it would fall with even
force and effect upon all of the eonstitu
tents of those who voted for it.
The States represented in the consti
tutional convention, said the Chief Jus
tice, surrendered their right to levy im
posts, excises and duties to the general
government. They looked forward to
the time when great States to the west
of them would be coming into the Un
ion, and when they gave up that right,
they did so with confidence that the rule
of uniformity would be observed in the
laying of taxes by the congress.
The first question to be considered,
said Chief Justice Fuller, was whether
or not a tax on rents is a direct tax
within the meaning of the constitution.
It had always been held, he said, that a
tax on e-state, real or personal, was a
direct tax, but it might be that the con
stitution had a different meaning, and
that it was to be applied to this case. In
that view it became necessary to inquire
what were direct taxes at the time the
constitution was adopted.
The Chief Sustice then made extensive
quotations from the history of the de
bates in the convention on the subject
of taxation. The inference from them,
he said, was that the general distinction
being direct and indirect taxation was
well understood by the members of the
convention, and that the expectation
was that a direct tax would be the last
resort of Congress.
The celebrated case of Hyton vs the
United States, decided March 3d, 1796,
was then referred to at great length, the
one in which it was held that a tax on
carriages was not a direct tax. The
several opinions filed by the justices
were quoted, aud Mr. Chief Justice Ful
ler asserted that in none of them was
there any expression of opin on as to
whether or not anything except land
and capitation laxes was a direct tax,
but they were confined to the case at
hand. The case, he said, seemed to
turn upon the declaration of Hamilton
as to what constituted direct taxation; if
there has been a reference to the decisions
of the country from which the United
States derived its jurisprudence, it would
have been fatal, sos in Great Britain in
come taxes had always been treated as
direct taxes
Former Decisions Reviewed.
The opinion then proceeded to review
the decisions made by the Supreme
Court in cases arising under the law of
1861. which, the Chief Justice said, coun
sel had contended declared that
an income tax was not a direct
tax, and must be regarded as
controlling in the case under review.
The principle of stare decims , he con
tinued, applied only to cases are directly
in point. No court had ever held itself
bound by any part of a decision not
necessary to decide the case before it.
The duty of any court charged with the
construction of constitutional provisions
was not to extend a decision on a ques
tion if an eiror of principle was likely
thereby to be perpetuated or committed.
In the light of these observations the
opinion considered the decisions down
to that in the Springer case,and concluded
that they were all distinguished from the
one in hand. The Springer case was no
exception to the rule, inasmuch as it did 1
RALEIGH. N. C., TUESDAY. APRIL 9. 1895.
not present the point raised in this case,
is a tax on tents a tax on real estate ?
The court, the opinion continued, was
unable to see any distinction between a
tax on real estate and a tax on the rents
arising from such real estate. What
is land but the income thereof? was
asked. The constitutional require
ment was that the taxes should be
laid only by apportionment among
the States according to population, and
this tax was a direct tax. There was
no distinction between an annual tax
on the value of the land and a tax on
the land itself. Constitutional provis
ions, it was said, could not be thus
evaded; it was the substance, and not
the form or shadow that was to prevail
in construing them. Upon this point
there were many decisions, and some of
them were quoted.
“What the constitution intended to
prevent,” said the Chief Justice, “was
that no tax should be laid on the resi
dents of any State by the representatives
of other States.” The exercise of the
power to levy direct taxes was to be re
stricted to extraordinary occasions.
In conclusion therefore, upon this
point, the Chief Justice announced that
the court were of the opinion that that
part of the law imposing taxes upon
rents obtained from real estate was in
valid.
State and Municipal Bonds.
Next in order the opinion considered
the third objection to the law: That it
imposed a tax upon the incomes derived
from investments in State and municipal
bonds, and was therefore invalid.
Chief Justice Fuller re-asserted the
general principle that a tax on govern
ment bonds was held to be a tax on con
tracts and prejudicial to the public in
terest. It was obvius that such a tax on
the powers of the States or municipali
ties to make contracts was prejudicial to
public policy and therefore unconstitu
tional.
On the matters involved in the case
of Hyde vs. the Continental Trust Com
pany of New York, and in the case of
J. G. Moore vs. J. Smiler, Commissioner
of Internal Revenue for an injunction
to restrain him from proceeding to carry
out the law, appealed from the courts of
the District of Columbia, Chief Justice
Fuller stated that the court was equally
divided. The judgment of the lower
courts as far as it related to the payment
of the tax ou real estate and municipal
bonds was reversed. In the Moore case
the effect of the court's action is to af
firm the refusal of an injunction against
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Justices Field and White read inde
pendent dissenting opinions.
Justice Field’s Opinion.
Justice Field devoted some time to a
review of the provisions regarding rents
and denounced the principle sought to
be established by the income tax law.
Many of his conclusions were in con
formity with those expressed by the Chief
Justice. He also attacked the law on
account of it’s lack of uniformity, and
the many discriminations found therein.
Taking up the exemption of mutual
insurance companies, he declared that
they were conducted on lines identical
with those on which large corporations
were conducted —for the mutual benefit
of stockholders. He inveighed against
the exemption of saving and building
associations, which were not charitable
institutions, but conducted for either
money making or money saving. All
these exemptions stamped the law as
class legislation of the most pronounced
character. The law violated every
right and comity gathered under the
Constitution. That there should be any
doubt about this, surpassed his compre
hension. If the census figures did not
convince one of the magnitude and in
justice of the exemptions granted, he
did not think Congress could be con
vinced, “though one rose from the
dead” to convince it. The law was also
invalid in that it levied a tax upon the
salaries of the 101 judges of the United
States, many of whom received small
salaries. If the provisions of the Con
stitution could be set aside by the arbi
trary act of Congress, where, he
asked, would this power end ?
It was but the stepping stone
to other and greater acts that
would event ually open the way for a war
between the poor and the rich. Such a
power assumed by Congress and per
mitted to go unchallenged, would mark
the hour waon the decadence of the na
tion would commence. If the limit of
the exemption could be fixed at $4,000,
future Congresses might fix it at $15,000
or $20,000, thus compelling one class
alone to pay the tax. Or, the limit
might be fixed at such an amount as a
board of walking delegates might deter
mine to be necessary.
In conclusion, Justice Field announced
his opinion that the whole law of 1894,
should be declared to lie null and void.
i
Justice W hite Also Dissents.
Justice White prefaced his dissenting
opinion with the statement that the cus
tom of rendering long dissents in a court
of last resort was more honored in the
breach than in the observance Their
only effect was to weaken the efficacy of
the opinion of the court.
Justice White said he should not speak
to-day but for the fact that the court
had overruled established precedents
and the settled and uniform doctrine of
the Supreme Court down to the present
time. He regretted that at this last day
this court should nullify an act of Con
gress affirmed by all text writers and by
every decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States. When the Fathers
constructed our form of govern
ment they gave it unlimited power
to levy taxes, with but one excep
tion—that of taxing exports. The as
sertion that the constitutionality of Con -
gress was limited, was, he thought, the
fundamental error in the ruling of the
majority of this court. The great ques
tion before the court was: Is income tax
a direct tax? That question was practi
cally decided long ago, and he did not
doern it necessary to enter into an elabo
rate review of the case.
In briefly reviewing the case presented
to the court he observed that the argu
ments made and the citations used in
this case were the same as those brought
out in the Hyton case, and now this
court was asked to again take up the
question adjudicated by a unanimous
court a hundred years ago.
Justice Harlan Almost in Accord.
Justice Harlan was of the opinion
j that a tax on gains, profits and income
| derived from rent of lands was not a di
| rect tax; that under numerous decisions
of this court the income derived from
municipal bonds was not the subject of
specific taxation in any form by the
United States. In other, matters he was
in accord with Justiee White.
At 2:35 the court concluded the read
ing of opinions.
Upon the question of the constitution
ality from State aud municipal bonds
the court was in the negative. Upon the
question of taxation of rents the court
stood against the law.
Will Not Cull an Extra Session.
Washington, April 8. -The President
on beiDg asked to-day whether in view
of the decision of the Supreme Court on
the income tax law an extra session of
Congress would lie called, said that
neither he nor the Secretary of the
Treasury saw any necessity for such ac
j tion and usless there was an unexpected
change in conditions he had no idea that
Congress would meet again before the
I time appointed for its regular session.
The effect of the Supreme court deci
sion on the income tax law so far as the
Treasury Department afficials can deter
mine after a hurried estimation made
this afternoon, will be a reduction of
about one half in the revenue originally
estimated as obtainable from that source,
thus making the annual revenue to be
expected about $15,000,000. The origin
al estimation of $30,000,000 per year was
based on the assumption that the law
would be held to be constitutional in all
its provisions.
Collectors of internal revenue will be
notified of the decision and instructed to
make whatever questions may be neces
sary through the decision rendered to
day, in the blanks furnished them. No
new forms will be issued and the work
of preparation for the collection of tax
will proceed-.
Will Not A»k a Rehearing.
Attorney General Olney said the gov
ernment would not ask for a rehearing
but would accept the decision as ren
dered. He was not surprised at that
portion of it excepting municipal
and State bonds from taxation, but
expressed the hope that the ques
tion of rents might be brought be
fore the court in some other shape when
he entertained the strong belief that the
present attitude of the court would be ;
revised.
In the Treasury Department Assistant
Secretary Curtis declared that the con
dition of the Treasury was good.
Commissioner Miller and officials of
the income tax division held a confer
ence to-night at the Treasury discussing j
the bearing of the opinion ou the pres
ent income tax machinery in operation
and changing it when necessary to meet ;
the changed condition. These instrue- |
tions will be ready for publication to
morrow or next day.
HEAVY RAINS IN VIRGINIA.
The Swollen Streams Rival the Fa
mous Flood oi 1878.
Lynchburg, Va., April 8. — A special
from Wytheville, Ya., to the News says:
The citizens of Wytheville waked this
morning to find that the heavy rains
during the night had created
a flood in the streams rivaling
the famous flood of 1878, the
difference being that this flood, though
lacking two or three feet of being as
high in Reed river rose much more rap
idly aud did equally as much damage.
Fences, logs, bridges, lumber and live
stock were caught by the swelling streams
and carried down with irresistible force.
The railroad track in the neighbor
hood of Max Meadows was flooded and
there have been no trains from either
direction to day.
Dr. S. R. Sayers had a hundred sheep
and two olfs drowned. A number of
other casualty s are reported, but the
streams are so high that news is cut off
from a greater part of the county.
So far as can be learned the lain was
confined to Southwest Virginia, but was
so heavy in places as to indicate local
waterspouts. The water is receding
rapidly now.
Death of Miss Mary John.
Special to the News and Observer.
John Station, N. C., April 8.
Miss Mary John, of Richmond county,
who was stricken with pneumonia No
vember last died to day at her home
near John Station. She was a graduate
of Greensboro Female College and last
year a student in the State Normal and
Industrial School and had a large ac
quaintance throughout the State.
The Wound lias Healed*
London, April 8.--A Central News
dispatch from Tokio says: Dr. Sato says
that Li Hung Chang’s wound is com
pletely healed. Dr. Sato will retui nat
once to Hiroshama.
Governor Marvil Dead.
Wilmington, Del. April B.—Governor
Marvil died at 9:15 to-night after a
lingering illness.
CARR TO THE RESCUE
THE GOVERNOR, AS PRIVATE
CITIZEN, ASKS SUPPRESSION
OF THE MORTGAGE LAW.
COMPLAINT SERVED UPON COKE.
The Secretary ol State Finds Himself
Defendant in an Action to Prevent
His Publication of the Fraudulent
Measure—The Democrats Would
Thus Save the People Against Their
Enemies—The Governer Gave Bond
and F’iled the Complaint Yesterday.
Yesterday afternoon, Gov. Carr came
in from the drizzly air aud presented
himself to Superior Court Clerk D. H.
Young.
Tne Governor came as private citizen.
Elias Carr, to present a complaint in be
half of himself and all other citizens vs.
Octavius Coke. Secretary of State of
North Carolina. There was a copy, too,
which was put in the hands of the sheriff
and will this morniug be served upon
the Secretary. In the meantime, the
! Secretary will be enjoined from publica
tion of the act known as the Anti-prefer
| ence law aud the cause will be heard be-
I fore the Dext term of the Superior Court.
Without further comment, thecomplaint
with the above explanation is laid before
the readers of the News and Observer
as the heroic attempt of the Governor to
stand, as the principal citizen of the
State, between its citizens and the busi
ness revolution into which they were
about to be plunged by the craven cor
ruption of some vicious band.
; State of North Carolin i—Wake County.
Superior Court, April term, 1895.
j Elias Carr, in behalf of himself and all
other citizens of the State of North
Carolina, vs. Octavius Coke, Secretary
of State of North Carolina.
Complaint.
The plaintiff, in behalf of himself and
| all other citizens of the State of North
| Carolina, complaining, alleges:
Ist. That defendant is Secretary of
State of North Carolina, and by virtue
of his office has the custody of all the
acts passed by the Legislature of 1895,
or which purport to have been passed
by it.
2nd. It becomes his duty by law to
deliver certified copies of said acts to the
public printer of said State for printing
and publication.
3rd. When so printed and published,
they become presumptive evidence that
they are laws duly and constitutionally
enacted.
4th. On the 13;h day of March, A. D.
1895, a bill was signed by the President
of the Senate and Speaker of the House
of Representatives in the Legislature of
North Carolina, at its last session, in the
presence of each House, and purports to
have been ratified upon that day, which
reads as follQws: i
“An Act to regulate assignments and
other conveyances of like nature in
North Carolina
“The General Assembly of North Car
olina do enact :
“Section 1. That all conditional sales,
assignments, mortgages, or deeds of
trust which are executed to secure any
debt, obligation note, or bond, which
gives preference to any creditor of the
maker shall be absolutely void as to ex
isting creditors.
“Section 2. That all laws in conflict
with this act are hereby repealed.
“Section 3. That this act shall be in
force from and after its ratification.
“Ratified the 13 h day of March,
1895,”
sth. The said bill, as this plaintiff is
informed and believes, was not enacted
a law in accordance with the provisions
of the Constitution of this State.
6th. The Journals of both Houses of
the Legislature show that it was not
read three times in either House.
7th. The Journal of the Senate shows
that it was never read before that body, 1
and never passed any reading in it.
Bth. The Journal of the House of Rep
resentatives shows that it was intro- I
duced in that body and referred to a
committee, tbe said committee reported j
it back to the House with an amend
ment, and that it was laid ou the table
on its second reading in that body, on j
the 11th day of March, A. D., 1895.
9th. The bill is marked and stamped, j
Tabled 12th day of March, A. D , 1895. I
10th. It. is now deposited amonst the !
tabled bills in their proper receptacle in
what is known as ihe Old State Library,
in the Capitol.
11th. By some means unknown to this
plaintiff, but which he is informed and
believes to be fraudulent, the said bill
was enrolled by some person to this
plaintiff unknown, in the office of the
Enrolling Clerk, and signed by mistake
by the President of the Senate and j
Speaker of the House of Representatives
upon the day upon which it purports to j
have been ratified.
12th. The copy of the enrolled bill I
purporting to have been ratified, as
above stated, is now iu the custody of i
the defendant, the Secretary of the State
of North Carolina.
13th. The said defendant, in per
formance of the duty by law im
posed upon him, is compelled to deliver
for printing and publication to the Pub
lic Printer of this State a certified copy
of said fraudulent act to be published
and printed as an act of the legislature
of 1895, unless restrained from so doing
by the order of this Court.
14th. The said defendant now threat
ens and declares his intention to so de
liver a certified copy of the said fraudu
lent act to the Public Printer to be pub
lished and printed as aforesaid.
15 s h. The act when so printed aud
PRICE FIVE CENTS.
published becomes presumptively an act
of the legislature, duly enacted, and a
valid law of the State.
16th. This plaintiff is informed and
: believes that after such printing and
! publication there is no legal method by
which such presumption can be rebutted
in the Courts of this State so long as
said act remains in the custody of the
Secretary of said State filed with the
acts of the legislature legally passed.Ly
it.
17th. Plaintiff is a resident and citi
zen of the State of North Carolina and
owns property within said State over
and above his homestead and personal
property exemptions; he proposes to re
side in said State hereafter, and he, in
I common with many other citizens will
i be injured in his right of alienation of
, his property if said fraudulent act of the
| legislature is printed and published in
| the manner above stated or remains in
I the custody of the said Secretary of
j State filed with acts of the legislature
as above set forth; that he is a creditor
of debtors who are indebted to others
and will be deprived by the said act of
the right to secure debts so due him by
mortgage, conditional sales, deeds of
trust or assignments, unless the relief
prayed for in this complaint is granted.
18th. That a summons has been served
! in this case upon the defendant together
with a copy of this complaint.
Wherefore the plaintiff prays that an
order be made by this Court directing
said defendant Secretary of State to
show cause why a peremptory manda
mus shall not be issued agaiDst him to
compel him to remove the said act from
the files of the laws required to be kept
by him, and why he should not be en
; joined from delivering a certified- copy
of said act to the Public Printer of this
State to be printed and published as a
law of this State, and the plaintiff furth
er prays that the said defendant may be
restrained in from deliv
ering a certified copy of said act to the
Public Printer to be printed and pub
lished as aforesaid, aud demands such
• other and further relief as theConrt may
adjudge that he is entitled to in the
I premises, and asks that this complaint
shall be treated as an affidavit for the
purpose of obtaining the temporary re
; training order for which he prays.
F. H. Busbee,
F. I. Osborne,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Elias Carr, being duly sworn, says
that the facts set forth in the above
complaint as of his own knowledge are
true; and those stated upon his informa
tion and belief he believes to be true.
Elias Carr.
Sworn and subscribed before me this
Bth day of April 1895.
D. H. Young,
Clerk Superior Court
of Wake County, N. C.
PROF. HAWKS LECTURES.
Heaviest Rain tail at tfie University for
Many Years.
i
Special to the News and Observer.
Chapel Hill, N. C., April 8.
Prof. A. W. Hawks, of Baltimore, has
delighted several full audiences here
with pleasing lectures. The Di. Society
had him iu a pay lecture on Friday night
i and on Saturday night the same society
| engaged him for a lecture on “Sunshine,”
! complimentary to the University and the
j village.
Prof. Hawks led the service at the Bap
; tist church on Sunday to the Y. M. C. A.
I at 3:30 p. m.
Last night Prof. Mmuns, of Trinity
College, ou invitation of the Y. M. C. A..
delivered a most interesting lecture on
the “Book of Job.” It showed a great
deal of earnest research and study. All
the churches imbed at the Chapel to hear
him.
Ex-Justice Shepherd spent Sunday on
tbe Hill.
The “Alumni Quarterly” is being
mailed. It is an interesting number,
being devoted to the benefactors of the
University. It has an excellent likeness
of Dr. Deems and copies of the Mason
Portraits, and prints the address deliv
j f red las*, commencement on Dr. Deems
j by the late Dr. F. L. Reid.
Preparatory woik is going forward
j for the great Centennial Commence
ment. With three good hotels and the
numerous boarding houses, it is being
j planned that all who come will be ac
! commodated. There will be new and
i special features of interest.
The faculty for the Summer School for
j teachers will soon be published. The
school will open June 25th and continue
five weeks. All the teachers in the
State who wish the best instruction in
methods should come. The cost is nom
inal.
New paint and new >ard fences are
improving the town.
Miss Lizzie Harris has returned from
her music work in Maxton.
Rev. Dr. Carroll has been confined to
the house for some time.
The heaviest rainfall of many years
fell last night. Prof. Gore’s official
measurement shows 4 3 4 inches during
the night, all of which was confined to
a few hours.
Latul ami Timber Company Fail.
Pensacola, Fla., April B.— The South
ern States, Land aud Timber Company,
one of the largest concerns here, was
placed iu the hands of three receivers to
day by order of Judge Pardee, of New
Orleans. This is au English company
and has offices in New York. The re
ceivers are S. M. Lament and W. F. Mc-
Cormick, of Louisville, Ky., and Clar
ence Cary, of New York. The business
will be continued by the three receivers
attending to the business in America,
and Ernest Noel, of London, the English
business.