The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-05-19
SPIRIT OF THE PRESS.
Editorial Opinions ofthe Leading Journals
upon Current Topics -Compted Every
Day for the Evening Telegraph.
THE PEOPLE AND THE TAXES.

From the NJ Y Times.
For any approach to relief, in the shape of
reduced taxation, we are disposed to be duly |
grateful. So far as the session OF Congress
has yet gone, the odds have seemed nearly
all against the people. Trifiing matters
have been discussed with great prolixity, and
measures not called for have been allowed to
absorb the time which properly belonged to |
important public interests. Funding mas |
oceupied attention that should have been
devoted to reform; the battle of the tariff
has been waged in opposition to fresh de-
rnands rather than in furtherance of
thorough, scientific revision and amendment.
There has been cause for dissatisfaction, per-
haps even for disgust The prospect of some
benefit, afforded by the almost simultaneous
presentation of bills for the reduction of
taxes, in the Senate and House, comes, there
fore, with certain unexpectedness which
may moderate if it does not disarm hostile
criticism. Thankfulness for small mercies
was never more beftting than now.
The events of the last few days have shown,
however, that in the present instance an ap-
probation of benefits promised is not incom-
patible with q hopeful effort to make them
larger The Ways and Means Committee is
not absolute master of the fiscal situation. 1t
only proposes, the House disposes. The re-
volt of influential Republicans against the
attempt to waste further time upon a Tariff
bill which has not the remotest chance of
success, indicates the growth of an influence
favorable to the wholesome changes in any
measure reported from the committee Its
judgment does not carry the impress of in
falibility-scarcely of power. We may be
sure therefore, that the Tax bill brought for
ward by Mr.. Schenck will be freely handled;
and in this prospect we see an assurance of
changes which will bring the measure into
closer harmony with the measure prepared by
the Senate Finance Committee.
The most essential difference between the
schemes is in the amount of relief they are
calculated respectively to afford The HoU7e
bill contemplates reduction of taxes am cunt
ing in round numbers to thirty three mil
lions; the reduction effected by the Senate
bill would be some ten millions more. If
there were any doubt as to the ability of the
Treasury to sustain a diminution of its re-
sources to an extent not exceeding the
larger of these amounts, there might be ex-
cuse for hesitation in determining prefer
ence. But the fact, is that the forty-three
millions reduction contemplated by the
Senate committee is far below both the capa
city of the Treasury and the expectation of
the country. 1t is safe to say that margin of
at least sixty millions is available for reve-
nue. reduction, without impairing the ability
of the Government to comply with the re-
quirements of law in regard to the sinking
fund A margin of hundred millions might,
a
whole; and deducting from this twenty-five
millions, a contribution to the sinking
fund, seventy-fve millions would remain as
the measure of the extent to which taxes
might be reduced. Keeping in view possible
contingencies as a result of industrial de-.
preston or financial exigencies, we assign
sixty millions as the minimum of reduction
which a Congress intent only on benefting
the people would endeavor to realize.
Evidently, then, the scheme of the Ways
and Means Committee but half performs the
work that is wanted. We are entitled to
sixty millions reduction, and we are promised
thirty three. The Senate bill is better by
ten millions. And the latter probably consti-
tutes the basis upon which Republicans
may most usefully conduct their opposition
to Mr. Schencks proposition; for the radi-
cal difference between them is confined to
single point. In their general scope they
agree. The dissimilarity begins when the in
come tax comes in question: circumstance
we consider favorable to the equable read
justment of tax which has been made spe-
cially odious by the oppressiveness of its
rate and the unnecessary annoyance of Its
administration.
The difference is not as to the continuance
or abrogation of the income tax. On that
head the committees are united Both
wisely propose to abolish taxes which inter-
fere more with the operations of trade, and
W Coutiuuo cudlBo upon lucOmeS as leBl-
innate and productive source of revenue.
The Senate bill contem plates the continuance
of the five per cent. rate only during the
present year-the rate to be afterwards re-
duced to three per cent. and the exemption
to be as now. The House bill, on the other
hand, enlarges the exemption, and divests the
tax of many of its inquisitorial aspects, but
makes permanent the five per cent rate Out
of this difference grow the ten millions, more
or less, which indicate the degrees of relief to
be afforded the taxpayers by the legislation
contemplated In other words, Mr. Schenck
would exact ten millions more through the
income tax than would be exacted by the
Senate scheme. The additional relief he
holds out by an increase of the income ex-
empted is much more than counteracted by
the maintenance of the present extravagant
rate upon the incomes subject to assess
ment. This is the condemnation of the
Schenck bill
We can imagine few greater mistakes than
the reimpositien of the existing tax, or the
re-enactment of any income tax without
thorough consideration of the many points
1t involves. The public is long-suffering
but it will not bear with patience a tax that
is oppressive in its amount, unequal and un-
just In its operation, and beset with appli-
ances winch are vexatious and unnecessary
continuance of the income tax, then.
should be resolved upon only in CONJUNCTION
with purpose to mitigate its weight and
free it from harshness and iniustice Tba
latter object is in large degree effected bv
the House bill, which abrogates the inauisi
torial features OF the present law. But both
bills perpetuate the distinctive outrage of
the system as it is, by ignoring the sources
of income in the adjustment of burdens