The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-06-22

sibly he would prefer graduated land
tax 10 graduated iaeome tax
you VIII give the senators on this
side time. in,eFposed Hill. perhaps they
| VIII report land tax
Il viii E We them i've years when this
tar expires. replied PETER, amid laugh
| ter.
rerlsr said the Western people had been
hewers Of wood and drawers Of water long
enough. The Popalist party proposed
nov 70 make the East shoulder its share
Hitl took the floor when PETER con-
Guided and congratulated the Democratic
majority on its new leadership. The sen-
ato- from Kansas (Peiier) had announced
that the income tax belonged peculiarly
and exclusively to his party. Before he
had made that announcement there
had been some senator's on the Demo
cratic side who evidently had labored
under the impression That il was in some
way Democratic doctrine. PETER Vas
right The income tar was one OF the
nrst principles of the Pepulist party. The
fopualsts bad been consistent in its advo-
cacy, ana were now about 10 witness its
triumph He dad not desire to make any
reflections upon Populistic or sociaiistic
Ideas. There Was difference of opinion
IS 10 what they believed. The socialists
believed IN paternal government. in the
redistribution of property and the eom-
munliy OF interest Both socialists and
Popnlists believed in an income tax.
III they Go that is the only respect
In which they are similar" interjected
Allen.
''Do the Popnlists not believe in the
government ownerships of railroads. banks
and telegraphs ,"
"They believe in the gradual assump-
tion of the ownership of railways and tele-
graphs by the government put they do not
believe in state ownership OF banks. {"
"That is it. F" ssid Hill 'sboth believe in
paiernal government and an income tax.
The only di ference between them is that
the socialist party goes farther than the
Popaiist'
"The income tax" interrup ted Aldrich,
lis advocated by the socialist, the popu-
Inst and the Democratic parties, 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 Teller
statement made by any person whatever"
Hill was proceeding to say that If the
income tax had no advocates on their side
of the chamber il was proper that PETER
should assume the leadership, when Voor-
hees called attention to the fact that he
had advocated and defended it squarely in
his first speech.
Mr.. Till admitted this, and said he had
looked up the senator's record and found
he had advocated il years ago. 1t was
then dropped bv common consent by both
parties, he added. Hill expressed the
opinion, despite the decision in the
Springer case. that the tax would hold to
be direct tax and would be declared
unconstitutional.
Peffer's graduated income tax amend
ment was defeated.
The reports from the investigating COM
mittee were then presented. The question
of their reception occasioned considerable
debate. Hill entered motion not to re-
ceive the reports. He contended that 8
minority report having been made as to
the material questions asked Havemeyer,
Searles and Mccartney, 1t was within
the jurisdiction of the senate 10
decide whether the questions were
material before having these witnesses
certified under the statute as contuma-
cious. Davis, member of the committee,
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 unde-
cided. Adjourned.
Nominations: Perry Bartholomew, con-
sui at Mayenee, Germany; s. T. 0wings,
postmaster at Moscow, Idaho; Thomas j.
Craig. at Eugene. Or; Benjamin +. Bon
ham, at Salem, Or; James A. Crossen, at
The Dalies Or; Stephen Il. Green, at Ore
gon City, Or.