The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-06-22

bat this closed the sensational episode
and the debate on the income tax WAS
pfocse dsd with. Mr.. Hosr, (Rep.l of
sachusetts, msbiuA a somewhat long
argument against it, dwelling particu
larly on its inexpediepcy in time Of peace,
and its Questionable features As a mode
OF raising revenue forthe federal govern
ment.
Mr.. Aldrich moved that the date on
which the income tax should cease be
January l, 1898 The finance committee
compromise amendment to the house
bill, which provided no time limit, Gxed
the date on which it ehould cease as
January l, 1900. The amendment was
defeated, % to 80. All the Democrats
voted against it, together with Dn BoiE,
Teller and Mitchell OF Oregon, Repub-
licane, and Allen, Kyle and PETER, Pop
ulists.
Mr.. Hill, who was not present, did
not vote.
fixing the time limit during which the
tax was to run at January l, 1900, was
then agreed to.
Mr.. PETER then offered the amend
ment Of which he gave notice yesterday,
W. IpNy lAuuhtoo INA Ohoi
said it was true. as had been charged by
Hill, that an income tax was Populist
idea. Possibly he would prefer gradu-
ated land tax to graduated income
tax.
''If you will give the senators on this
aide time" interposed Hr. Hill. per
haps they will report land tax"
II will give them five years when this
tax expires" replied Mr.. Pef1er, amid
laughter.
Mr.. PETER said the western people had
been hewers OF wood and drawers of
water long enough. The Populiat party
proposed to make the east shoulder its
share.
Mr.. Hill took the floor when PETER
concluded. and congratulated the Demo-
cratic majority on it's new leadership.
The senator IRON Kansas (Pefer) had
announced that the income tax belonged
peculiarly and exclusively to mis- party.
Before he had made that announcement
there had been some senators on the
Democratic side who evidently had la
bored under the impression that it was
in some way a Democratic doctrine. Mr..
PETER WAS riyht. The income tax
was one of the first principles OF the
Populist party. Populists had beer con-
sistent in its advocacy, and were now to
witness it's triumph. He did not desire
to make any reflections upon Populistic
or Socialstic ideas. There was differ
ence OF opinion as to what they believed.
The Socialists believed in a paternel
government, in the redistribution of
property and the community OF interest.
Both Socialists and Populists believed
in an income tax.
''If they do, that is the only respect
in which they are similar" interjected
Mr.. Allen.
'Do the Populists not believe in the
ownership of railroads, banks and tele-
graphsP"
''They believe in the gradual assump-
tion OF the ownership of railways and
telegraphs by the government. but they
do not believe in state ownership OF
banke."
THAT is it," said Mr.. Hill, "both be-
lieve in psternal government and an
income tax. The only difference be-
tween them is that the Socialist party
goes farther than the Populist."
1.-The income tax" interrupted Mr..
Aldrich, lis advocated by the Socialist,
the Populist and the Democratic par
ties, with few honorable EXCEPTIONS. as
a means for the redistribution OF wealth. ="
''lt Is not advocated as a means for
the redistribution OF wealth." broke in
Mr.. Teller almost angrily. mo one
ever heard that statement made by any
person whatever"
Mr.. Hill was proceeding to say that if
the income tax had no advocates on
their side of the chamber. it was prop
er that Mr.. PETER should assume the
leadership, when Mr.. Voorhees, called
attention to the fact that he had advo-
Gated and defended it squarely in his
first speech. Mr.. Hill admitted this,
and said he had looked up the senator's
record and found he had advocated it
years ago. ut was then dropped by
common consent by both psrties," he
added.
Mr.. Hill expressed the opinion, des-
pite the decision in the Springer case,
that the tax would be held to be direct
tax and would be declared unconstitu-
tional.
Mr.. Peffer's grad mated income amend.
ment was defeated.
The report from the sugar ipvestigat-
ing committee was then presented. The
question of its reception occasioned con
siderable discussion.
Mrs I1lll entered mOtlon nOC 10 re-
ceive the report. He contended that a
minority report having been made as to
the material character of the questions
asked Havemeyer and Searles and
Mccartney, it was within the jurisdic-
tion of the senate to decide whether the
questions were material before having
these witnesses certified under the stat
ute as contumacious.
Mr.. Davis, member of this commit
tee, thought that since the newspaper
men had been certified to the district
attorney, the sugar magnates should be
treated the same way.
The question was left undecided, and
the senate at O'Clock went into execu-
tive session and then soon adjourned.
House Proceedings.
WASHINGTON, June 21.-There was lit