The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-04-18
DAVE HILLS ME-T00
Senator James Smith, II,
Take His Stand Against
the Wilson Bill.
INCOME TAX BUGABOO
Eight Alleged Reasons Why
His Lordship Will Not
Vote for 1t.
THE OLD AMERICAN WAGES GAG.
Pleas for Trusts and Monopolie
Disguised as Arguments for the
Dear Workingman.
INCOME TAX BUGABOO
THE OLD AMERICAN WAGES GAG,

ldIlh Dtll q ll10 bAO ROhcpO NDS
day Mr.. Smith of New Jersey began to
speak. His remarks, like those of Mr.. Hill,
were addressed almost entirely to the income
tax feature of the bill, Mr.. Smith saying in
his opening sentences:-"At some future
time I may consider it my duty to the State
which I know l represent, and to the politi-
cal organization which I hope / represent
to say a few words in a general way con-
corning the tariff bill now under considera-
ton. For the present, however, I shall. con-
fine my remarks to that portion of the
measure which provides for a tax upon in
come
Il oppose that provision for certain dis
tinct reasons which I shall endeayor to make
plain. l oppose it and shall do everythingin
my power to defeat it: first, because it is
unnecessary; second, because it is unjust;
third, because it is unsuccessful; fourth, be-
cause it is unpopular; fifth, because it is I'M
democratic; sixth, because 1t is un-Amerlcan
seventh, because it is unwlse; and finally, on
general principles, because it is unworthy of
an intelligent government supposed to repre-
sent a free and enlightened people,"
Mr.. Smith then proceeded to amplify these
various reasons. In showing that it was I'M
necessary, the Senator said that with the
single exception of the money required for
pensions, we have to meet only the ordinary
expenditures for economical administration
and we nave don SO ever under a tariff
which Is distinctly prohibitive in its nature
and was designed to reduce revenue.
1T is true that there is now a deficiency;
but it arose, not from the excess of ordinary
expenditure over ordinary receipts, but from
specific acts whose requirements have been
mot ona oann0t. 1.nQur In f9pt the total of
the sums paid during the past three years for
the refund of direct taxes for sugar bounties,
for the extinction of titles to Indian lands,
for the census, for first payments upon pen
sions, and for new war vessels, far exceeds
the amount of the present deficiency"
The whole question, he said, was one of re-
ceipts, and much of his argument in this line
was devoted to figures to show that the pro
posed tax was unnecessary and that, by the
admission of Mr.. VOORHEES,, the bill was not
expected to yield a surplus equal to the
amount expected to be realized by the income
tax.
A TEMPTATION, HE THINKS.
at seems to me, therefore," continued
Mr.. Smith, ''plain business proposition
that any amount of money raised by this
tax will serve no other purpose than that of
forming a surplus in the National Treasury
of no use to anybody and a constant tempta-
ton to extravaganza on the part of legis-
lators who cater to the p~rejudices of the So
called debtor classes. If this really be the
case, the tax is not only unnecessary but a
positive menace to safe, conservative and
economical administration of the govern
ment.n
The corollary of the proposition that the
tax was unnecessary was that it was unjust.
One fact was certain. Whatever of logic or
fairness or wisdom there may be in the
| theory of an income tax was wholly elimin-
| ated by this absurd limit. 1t was neither
the one thing nor the other. From the
| standpoint of those who honestly commended
that this method may afford equitable AKA
ton, it wa obviously too high. II every
| citizen was to bear the burden OF govern
ment in proportion to bis earnings, there
was surely no reason why he who receives
49, 500 a year should escape while his neigh
Dor earning $4,000 must pay.
Mr.. Smith devoted some tlme to the sta
| tistics showing what States had paid this tax
when enforced in this country during and
| after the war period, and then taking up the
| charge of se~ctionalism, continued:
ssBut we are told that the unselfish pa
| triots who are driving this bill through Con-
| gress deplore the Injection of sectionalism
into the discussion. is this unfair cries
| MIR. Hall. in The Forum, Does it justify
raising the sectional question: Is it we of
| the West and South who raise itg
sWell, let us see who has raised it If not
we of the West and South Who is re-
| sponsible for the proposition? Did any
Eastern member nave anything to do with
its introduction or its adoption by the Ways
| and Means Committee? On the contrary,
| did not every Eastern Democratic commit
teeman and leader protest against the inter
| lection of a sectional provision INTO the party
| policy at this times Would the scheme ever
the House of Representatives III we OF the
West and the South had not forced it upon
| the Committee of Ways and Meanss
What does the vote Indicate? For rea-
| sons best known to themselves the majority
refused to submit the Income tax to a sepa-
rate test and the vote was taken on the in
ternal revenue amendment as a whole. One
hundred and e~ighty-two representatives
voted aye. By geographical divisions this
vote was as follows: = Southern States;
| Texas, 10; West Virginia, A; North Caro-
lima. s: Mississippi, 4. Missouri, IS; Ala.
bama, g.; Kentucky, 10; Georgia, IL; Lou.
isiana. 8; Arkansas, 6; Virginia, 9; Tennes
see, s; Florida, q; South Carolina, 5. Total,
108.
western States: Kansas, 5; Minnesota, 4;
Wisconsin, g.; Illinois, IL; Nebraska, 3; In
diana, IL; Wyoming, /; Michigan, 5; Mon
tana, 1; Iowa, /; South Dakota, 1; Idaho, l
Colorado, 2; California, 5; Ohio, eleven.
Total, SO.
Middle States: Pennsylvania, 8. Total, 8
NEW England: Massachusetts,, /; Con
necticut. /. Total, 2.
A TYRANNY, SAYS JIM.
"There was no vote in favor of the income
tax from New York, New Jersey, Maryland
Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Vernon
or Rhode Island One hundred and seventy
seven from the South and West, five from
New England and the Middle States-that is
the record. / mention it merely to b
that not only did the South and West pro
pose and insist upon this tax, but the South
and West passed it unaided in the House
of Representatives. What absurdity ther
to accuse the East of raising the sectiona
question: The East not only did not raise it
but did not want it, int protested against it
| The sectional issue is forced upon us. The
whole proceeding is nothing else b q the
I exercise Of tyranny by a chance majority
over a minority. Because we of the East
have accumulated and are accommodating
| money by bard work we must stand and de
4 liver. And such a policy, ] say, with thu
utmost respect for mistaken Judgment, bu'
frankly and plainly to those who err vii
fully. is more b unjust. 1t is positively
dishonest and wholly discreditable.'
In arguing chat the tax was unsuccessful
Mr.. Smith referred to the experience of Eng
land and her inability to collect it. "Wha'
proportion then, y said he, smay / ask, woult
be likely to be paid in this country, whose
Constitution prohibits direct taxation, whose
people ave never tolerated it, except il
time of war, and whose official machinery il
clogged with politics"
1T is gratifying. no doubt, to assume tina
no citizen will lose an opportunity TO pay tht
last cent of taxation imposed upon him BY
the statutes. But we are living in Americs
not in Arcadia; and, unfortunately, there j
no warrant for the hope that the nature o