St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-06-22

their platform clause favoring that
tax; and awakening to their senses after
the election they discovered that their
ticket was third in the race; that their
party was demoralized. and thai they
had divided themselves Instead Of disid-
ing their opponents. The most disas-
trous defeat ever Experienced by the
Democratic party in Oregon was the
result of the effort to substitute new
tangled 'Populistic principles FOR the
good old principles of true Democracy.
Here and now venture the prediction
that the sans result will follow the same
effort everywhere"
Senator Hill presented petition from
a number of prominent business men of
New York city asking that
THE INCOME TAX
he stricken from The tariff bill. The
petition was signed by Evan Thomas.
William Steinway, Louis Windmuller.
}. Edward Sim0ns. ID. Babcock. Bayard
al" said MIR. Hill, .jO not wish to
drive such men out of the Democratic
party by our unwise legislation in the
hope OF supplying their places with
Adullamites, Coxeyites. socialists aud
all the 'ragtag ana DObtaiP elements of
the community. who will be attracted
to lis by our proposed raid upon the
wealth of the country.
''rhis Is essentially war tax. Here
tofore we, as Democrats, have clamored
against it. aud others like it. Look at
the spectacle which we now present. Ii
this is true Democracy, want none of
il. If this is the best leadership which
we can present in this great crisis, l,
for one, must decline to follow it. l
repudiate the spurious Democracy of
these modern apostles and prophets,
who are part Mugwump, part PopuliSts
and the least part Democrats. who seek
to lead us%astra, after false gods, false
theories and false methods. l object
to our restoring war tax which the
Republicans themselves rejected years
ago, with our appreciation. l protest
against that lack of foresight anu judy
ment upon the part of some protested
Democrats who always seek an excuse
10 adopt whatever the Republicans and
people have repudiated.
Il cannot follow such leadership,
which shifts ard turns. and temp0riZes
upon every public question: which conl-
promises every Well established
DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE
for which the party cOntended when out
of power. which stands ready to adopt
every expectancy and pursuss no con-
sstent course from one year TO another.
Ii political success of my party is only
to be purchased by such methods and
such sacrifices, prefer defeat and the
preservation of my self-respect.
This is tax the imposition of which
will drive New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut into the Republican
column. there to permanently renal II;
a tax the individual feature Of which has
not been recommended by any Demo-
cratic president or secretary of the
treasury or commissioner of internal
revenue, but tax suggested. advocated
AMI nov persistently pushed by a
majority which is temporarily III the
saddle in this congress, and is driving
The Democratic party with reckless and
headlOng speed into the abyss of po-
Iiticai ruili.'
Senator Hill presented several tables
of figures to show that the amount OF
revenue raised by the tariff bill, as now
proposed. would be amply sufficient
without recourse TO the income tax.
at has been difficult to fathom the
motives of the finance committee in its
AHoioCSuSS oPoA sh3 10 PtOPOoSo
duty upon sugar until January, 1895.
The committee. it must be admitted,
did not very successfully defend the
propriety of its action. Its attitude has
placed itin an awkward and unpleasant
position. inviting much criticism which
might better have been avoided.
''Sir, can it be possible trat its we'll
known anxiety to retain the income tax
provision in this bill has led it to post
pone the date for the operation of
THE SUGAKTAX, 4.gs7 ~
in order that there might be created an
apparent greater necessity for this in
come tax?
"If SO, it is understood. Some other
preteXt, some other excuse, some other
subterfuge must be invented.
lin their mad haste to attack the rich,
the champions of an income tax either
intentially or inadvertently assaulted the
poor.
Until the amendments relating to
savings banks were ordered yesterday
in the senate, the programme of the
majority here seemed 10 he to place
such institutions on substantially the
same level with business corporations,
and 10 subject them to the 2 per cent
tax. If there was any other intention
1t was not apparent.
81 have not had time to examine those
amendments, which are for the first
time printed and placed upon our desks
this morning, to determine whether
they contain an absolute exemption of
mutual savings banks or not. but from
hearing them hastily read at the secre-
tary's desk yesterday fear they are
not sufficiently broad to accomplish
that purpose.
They should be made so plain and
clear that there can remain NO possible
doubt Of their intention. Argument
ought not to be necessary to sustain the
proposition that mutual savings banks
should be absolutely exempt from any
income taxation.
This government cannot afford to
permit the savings of the DOOR to be
taxed through general income tax. /. 1t
would be the GROWING Infalny of this
bill.''
The same reason, said Senator Hill,
why savings banks should be
EXEMPT FROM THIS TAX
applies 10 the mutual insurance COM
panies, and he was not sure that the
amendments offered Yesterday went far
enough in this respect. This class of
Insurance companies were exempt in
Great Britain. He had numerous other
tinued. as he had pointed out in his
former speech its inqulsitorial features
and inevitable exposure of the private
affairs of business men. None of these
objections had been eliminated They
could not be eliminated, because they
must lie against any income tax.
Mr.. Higgins followed Mr.. Hill. Mr..
Chandler rose 10 resent the terpls used
Ivy Mr.. Allen yesterday in replying to
his charge that there was bargain by
which he was given free lumber OH
condition that he should vote for the
bill. Mr.. Allen replying, said he pro-
posed to do what he considered proper
in spite OF the ''low, dirty insinuations''
of the senator from New Hampshire,
which he said were false. Then Mr..
Allen renewed his expressions of yes
terday. Mr.. Chandler rejoined that
this only proved true what he had be-
fore said, that the senator was not ca
pable of understanding the courtesy
which should characterize debate in the