The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1870-06-03
THE INCOME TAX CONTEST.
SwPORTlyT AND INTERESTING DE-
BATE IN THE HOUSE.

bdfh tN LID hVtchs
-
Remarkable Arguments for lite Retentien-
Reasons for Its Utter Abelitton-Compio
sense In the Collection Of the Revenues
Representatives Listening to the People.
wAsuIsGroS, June 2.-The House at ~ p. N.
resumed consideration Of the bill to reduce internal
t,rss, the question being on the sections relating
TO the Income tax.
Mr. McCnARr (Rep., Iowa) opposed the abolition
Of the income tar, because that ta1 was the only
mode by which large portion Of the wealth Of tie
country was made 70 contribute 70 the national
revenue.
Mr.. ONEuL Rep.. Penny declared for absolute
repeal He not for any modification Of II, either
as 70 rate or amount Of exemption. The Govern
ment had exhibited to the world its perfect ability
70 pay the national debt, and honce II was time to
remove -
opIous AND OBNOXIOUS TAXES.
e believed ths, the country was satisfied to cancel
the national debt at the rate Of $50 900 year in
stead OF tioo.o 900 year.
Mr. WILSON Dem, Minn.) opposed the abolition
Of the income tax The pending bill proposed
reduction Of taxes by $40 coooo, but II the income
tar were abolished. an attempt would be made to
prevent the reduction OF taxation on other mat
tsrs. How could members 10 home and say that
they had abolish ed taxation on the rich and kept It
upon the poor' The income tax the fairest OF
II teu on tne rlCu, NOT on tne poor
Mr.. TowssESD Qiep., PENN declared that the
siamor for abolition local and fictitious one,
gotten up in the interest OF OF large fortune. 1t
did not hnd any response among the people, but
confined to comparatively few individuals. He "a
Sored the raising OF the exemption to t200O to
relieve men OF moderate means. He also favored the
reduction OF the rate TO 3per cent.
Mr.. JpDD CRep., M offered amendments comm.
ing the tar to invested capital and excluding profits
Mr.. HmL Rep, ni.) favored abolition. II It was
70 be continued he wanted the rate TO be reduced to
o per cent and the exemption raised to ta,5OO.
Yr. KELLOGG (Rep., Conn) characterized the In.
come tax as On odious and unpopular tax. II was
imposed at time OF national necessity, and after
SOLEMN PLEDGE
w~ given TO the country that 1t would be continued
until 1870, and no longer. He would therefore op-
pose Its longer continuance, and ift not to be
abolished he would favor a reduction OF the rate,
and an increase Of exemption.
Mr. NIBLAcK (Dem., Ind) had always favored
making the invested capital OF the country pay its
fair contribution to the revenue. but he was not in
presented Itself as a whole, whether the income taI
should be retained or struck out altogether, he
would vote TO strike It out altogether. II was an
irritating and provoking tax, and revenue enough
could be collected without 1t. 1t was very plausi-
Bile thing that the income affected rich men only
but the fact that the income tax affected all the
cuisines. OF the country and finally fell upon the
Air, HALE tRep, Me) moved to increase the ex.
emption to fs,OOO, aud reminded the House that
since 1868 the revenue had been reduced from 1910,
UO,UO TO fi60,00O,0O0. 30 he was In favor OF
ducng the income tax by raising the exemption
This would take out the small professional men and
clerks. and leave the tar TO he paid by those who
sere above the reach Of pinch or necessity.
Mr. WARD Rep., \. ~ had rsfrained from inter
Committee on Ways and Means II seemed TO him
that the opposition to the tax sprang from very
SMALL SPECIAL INTEREST.
Special interests got hold OF the newspapers, pur-
sued members into the committee rooms, and to
their homes. Aud special ne rests were very apt to
be regarded in forgetfulness OF the interest OF te
income tax, they sboissod tn. only .s that reached
personal property or that reached the income Of the
MI, MYERS Rep, Pal advocated abolition. The
put1e sentiment IN Philadelphia unanimous tor
favored the reduction of the rate and tie Increase
OF the eNCuption. In reply TO the remark OF his
country lie said that the farmers did hot pay aa in.
sss & M IT., Ts d @en MHE in the as 5se
several states put togetler.
Mr. fiNkELTBrRo Hep., Mo moved to limit the
slSwanSs 'Nr r house rent to tsC and argued that
ton While he favored modification, he was op
posed 70 It's total abolition.
Mr. WooD lDem, n. " said that the people de
msnded reduction OF taxation, and 1t was for Con
greas 70 determine whether the income Tar was not
one OF those that should be abolished lie believed
That it~as unjust,
UNEQUAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
the Constitution requiring taxation to be collected
IN proportion to population. lhe State OF New
while its population was only one-twenh the entire
population OF the country
Mr. ALLISON Rep Iowal was willing to extend
ell incomes, whether rom business, or from pro-
perty. or from accumulated capital.
Mr.. SARGENT (Rep., CALI remarked that there
not one chance In twenty that the Tariff bill would
pass Congress this session. and ~ was doubtful be
edes whether that bill made A.reduction. lie be-
lieved, therefore. that the pending bill the only
opportunity men bcrs would have to re ieem their
hvor the abolition OF the income tsI and II IL could
NO. be abolished he would favor its reduction.
mont yesterday OF his colleague (Davis). that the
House was estopPsd from continuing the income
go odious. 80 oppressive, so demorazing, conld he
for the public good, no matter wlut amount of reve
the House Objected 70 he tsIasion Of eapita Such
tAI was easily collected; but
rnx EVIL OF THIS Law
was its demoraizing character, and that it offered
reward to fraud and alsehOod, and imposed bur
den on honesty and fair dealing.
hr DAyls Rsp' n: ~ c9neuded his M argument
ana insqSaiiy It aiowed exemptions M Il to ei aeeumu.
lated wealth. II exempted sever. .tenths OF the
eonplated wealth The tax iell in great degree
OF accumulated wealth In the one case imposed in
the other case no!hing less than eonfaeation.
Mr. ScuENck Utcp o. asked Mr.. Davis what he
meant by exemption OF accumulated wealth.
Mr. DAyI' eII laiued that il man had $4,000 OF
accumulated wealth invested In bonds and mort
cages, yielding hm a net revenue OF five per cent.
over aud above his ordinary taxation, that was
Mr fiTcu (Rep., Now argued that the taxation
might safely be reduced 800, ,0O0 900 and that no
anchoh H"lld be 80 popular or 80 fair as the sboli-
GCn of the income tax.
MI FAhNswolsTH Qiop. Il) favored the con,inu
ence OF The tax, and the Increase of exemption to
$4,000 As ~ the objection that the taI should be
on capita, he sa'd That ousiaess was capital,
SRAISs wERB CAPITAL,
professions were capital, As To tie objection that
the Tax inquistoral, lie argued tuat II was
no more inquisitorial than otter taxes and that
argument was inconsistent with the other argument
that so many syaded the payment OF their Income
Tax.
Mr.. BANKS (Iiep., Mass) said that 20 far as be-
could Judge OF the temper OF the people he represent
ed the con uance OF this tax would discredt the
Gov ernment. lie was opposod to It IN oil forms,
and would vote against II as tax which ought not
70 Oo revived. II was unequal ana unjust The buk
oft was collected on wages, on salaries, aud repro
sented the productive energy Of the country II re
yivod, 1t would produce great discontent, and would
be eyaded or retisted as an unconstitutional tax.
Mr.. IsGgRsoLL Rep., H. said that after listening
yesterday u the debate on the match tax, and afey
listening todAy 10 the debate on the income tax, lie
We led to exclaim, " Consistency, nou art jewel"
The same members who argued yesterday against
Abohriing tie match tax, which brought t1OOOO0
trtO the treasury, 10 day arguing In FAVOR Ol