New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-06-27
rzp PROCEEDINGS IN DETAIL.

washington June pa resolution offered on May
Is by Mr. Allen pop. Neb) calling for Information
as 10 the total number of persons engaged III 'i0
,ec,ed Industries whose wages may De aHec'eu w
varjf legislation was taken up In the senate 'his
morning An effort was made on the part OF the
pe,h,,can Senators TO have II referred TO the
finance Committee. and after a motion 10 that
effect was defeated-yeas le. nays a. all the Demo-
cratic Senators voting with MI Allen IN 'he mega
tive--the resolution went over without iurther aC
ton and at O3O the Tariff bill was LAID oe1ore 'e
senate. the pending question being on the income
tax provisions.
Mr. Hin Dem y. " withdrew an amendment
which he had offered before the adjournment on
Saturday TO strike out the exemption from taNa'on
OF the income of United States bonds 80 exemp'ea
by the law Of their Issuance. and he suggested 70
make IN. clause read The principal and Interest
NJ which are BY the law OF their issuance ctc
That suggestion was accepted by Mr. Vest CDem.
Mol on the part OF the Finance COMMITTEE anu
the clause 50 modined ,
Than Mr. Hin stated that the reason why ne hau
offered his amendment last Saturday ("hich ne NJ"
admitted should not be agreed to) was 10 call 20
the attention of the people the fact that S635coVU
OF property was by this clause taken OUT OF '"e
taxable property OF the country lie then oHe'eu
an Amendment 70 include within the exemption 'i'e
bonds OF state. county. municipality or TOWN. anu
ne made an argument IN support OF the ameho'nei'
Mr. Vest Dem Mo- argued against H. WY ne
askea should the holder of state or city bonds be
EXEMPT from taxation Was II not an investment
as much 40 as any other investment that couio De
made? A millionaire might invest his immense lo''-
upe In State O. municipal bonds. ana thus nave
so go 900 or $4,000 900 exempt from taxation Inc
resu, OF such legislation would be 70 put an enor-
mons premium on those securities. 10 the disad-
vantage of other securities OF the country.
Mr. Hill argued that with this new income tax on
State and municipal bonds the people VINO Duy
them would Insist a higher rate OF interest.
nal 4 GflU0
Increase the State taxation 10 meet that higher
interest"
Mr. Hill conceded In that suggestion. and SAID
that States and municipalities should be put on an
equality in that respect with me Federai "oVerh-
men so that they should no: be compelled to neso-
tiate their bonds at a higher rate OF interest
Mr. Platt (Rep.. Comm inquired whether states
could not provide the issue Of bonds 10 be free
from taxation.
Mr. Hll had no doubt that they could. In the city
Of Brooklyn bonds to the amount or hundreus OF
thousands OF dollars had been issued for the erec-
ton OF armories which bonds were declared 10 be
exempt from all taxation. He admitted that Fed
eral taxation was not in view: but be submitted that
under the terms Of their issue they should be ex-
empt from Federal taxation n ? ~f FHf
oDIous ENOUGH ALREADY.
Mr.. Chandler O,ep.. y. h argued that the IN
come tax would be odIous enough without making
II more so by taxing the income from state
county and municipal DohGs' ii inc h'0'"'. ~
rived from interest on United States bonds should
not be taxed the Income derived from interest on
State county oni municipal bonds should not be
taxed.
Mr.. Mitchell C.ep.. Ore) colncded with the views
OF Senator's E:i anc Chandler.
Mr.. Higgins lRsp, Dell said that the income
tax provision not oniy Invaded the domain OF the
States BIZ: made :,e States themselves instru-
inertia: In the collection o: the taxation.
Mr. Sherman (Rep., ohio said that the more he
though: about - the more he became satisfied that
the provision would be ineffective either upon the
oi..oers OF Il State or upon a State
Mr. Allison (Rep Iowa. thought that the Sena-
tor Missouri should accept Mr.. Hilfs amend
msnt and yield the point; but Mr.. Vest. with
out rising. said that he had yielded too many
points already.
Mr. Hoar REP Mass) asked Mr.. Vest to explain
what difference there was between the case OF
taking tho interest State bonds and the case
Wherein II was held by the Supreme Court OF me