The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-02-04
THE INCOME TAX.

We would fain hope that the conference
committee on the income tax will find some
easy method of undoing the technical hitch
which obstructs the repeal of that most un-
Just and odious imposition. 1t is proper
enough that the committee and the two
houses should come to an understanding and
adopt some settled rule Cf they CAM as to
what class of bills relating to the revenue
the Senate may, or may not, originate; but
that is a minor matter. The Government
has gone on for eighty years without any
such settled rule, and no measure deemed
of public consequence has failed for the
want of it. Mr.. Clays Compromise
tariff, though a measure of reduction,
raised the duty on certain articles; and to
satisfy the scruples of a few Senators, Mr.
Clay, whose skill as a parliamentarian was
never surpassed, and who had too much ro-
bust sense to care for forms if he could gain
the substance, arranged with some of his
friends to make a motion for striking out all
after the enacting clause in a tariff bill then
pending in the House, and substitute his
own. By this easy man9uvre the technical
objection was flanked and the bill promptly
came up to the Senate as revenue measure
passed 10y the House, and went through at
once similar device would be the best
course to adopt now, leaving the parliament
ary rule to be settled at some future time on
its own merits.
The repeal will be accomplished, if at all,
by a slender majority; the great agricultural
section feeling perfectly easy under the in
come tax, which is chiefly paid by the sea-
board States. The fact that it's whole weight
falls upon one section of the country is
conspicuous proof of its injustice. The West
is more prosperous and thriving than the
East, and should bear its share of the public
burdens. The income tax is not only unjust
in itself, but it is peculiarly repugnant to
American feeling Our State Governments
could lay an income tax II they chose;
but none of them ever thought of doing
SO, and no party in State would dare make
so odious an experiment. All the
States tax property, and not income. 1t
would shock the general sense of fairness to
exempt rich men who own unimproved real
estate, such as city and village lots which
are rapidly rising in value but yield no lmme-
date income, and tax widows who own a
mortgage or a few railroad shares on which
they receive regular interest or dividends.
An income tax in this country abounds with
! that kind of injustice, and nothing but the
pressure of gigantic war would have recon
ciled the people to it even for limited
! period.
We borrowed the income tax from Eng
land, without considering the difference IN
the circumstances of the two countries. Even
in England the income tax is acknowledged
to be inequitsble by the very statesmen who
advocate its temporary continuance. But in
England agriculture bears its fair share of the
burden with other great pursuits, while il
this country agriculture escapes. And ye
England is not, to so great an extent as the
United States an agricultural country. Sht
does not grow nearly enough grain to feeC
her own people, whereas we are exporters O
breRdstutfs, as we'll as of other great agri
cultural staples like cotton and tobacco
Now in England nearly half of tn,
income tax is paid by the land, and this par
of it is assessed without self-appraisement b.
the taxpayers or any sort of inquisitoris
process by the Government, which are tn
two most important among the minor objec
tions to the income tax. The easy collection
of an income tax from the agricultural inte
rest in England, impossible here, results frou