The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-06-22
VOTING ON THE INCOME TAX,
4 Republican Amendment Defeated BY a
Vote Of SO 10 22,
SENATOR HILL READS 4 PROsY SPEECH
w,icb He Warns the Democratic Party
Against the Income 1"1-Ihe Anti
option Bill.

WASHINGTON. d. c., June H.-In the
,,orning half-hour the Senate passed bill
to define the boundaries Of three judicial
sta,ricts in Alabama and to regulate
che jurisdiction Of United States courts
therein.
Al 1890 the tariff bill was taken up, the
ending question being on the Income
TAX sections. and Mr. Hill addressed the
senate in opposition to the tax
Mr. hin read his speech from type
written sheets very slowly, and in some
what solemn tone and manner. Close
attention was given TO the speech on lhe
Democratic side Of the Chamber, particu-
larlv by the .wo New Jersey senator's
Mcpherson and Smith: while RepUuic"n
senators. with very few exceptions SCENE"
10 take little or no interest n 1t. Among
Mr HiUs most attentive listeners o" lhe
aoo~ Of the Senate were the three FoPuI.isst
senators. Allen, Kyle ard ielei. s,,i,io diI0
galleries contained quite large a,,Ien0s
Sfr Hill declined TO allow utetI ~ s'o'i, th1
stating his intention to take par ia '''0
discussion of the various amehnl"''''9'
SENATOR HnL's srEEch.
lie began his remarks by announc5,
INK that We have now Ie@0t,Se ne
the consideration Of one Oh Az,
most impCI tant features OF the PENN, Yen me
measure, important not only ueNa"'{, ir
TX which It seeks to impose cqual9 80
tbe aggregate about one-htteenth OF u'1
whole Federal taxation OF the OHl.Ou
fStates. but because OF the peCull@i ~ ',.
cure Of the burden as well as lht va.
Itind varied interests which II hJuilou9iy
lfects He alluded to his previous SlclIli
al the opening Of the debate, uihe' Sair
the Senator. whereof the memo Aor
man Tunneth not to the contrary w" ~"
he Ouposed the pending measure anu "C
ola referred the gUeeCn on lif ntt4hN
sde by the junior senator from -Ne" 'e
sev Mir smith. Arguments then ad-
Vanced had been eVaded, not rti Ut
cussing the proposition from q staH"i,'i-
of expediency alone, he declared theic
was enough Of honest difference IN ths
party relating to the details OF the tailL
bill without aTousing farther c4"'e,i'.on .,','
by this. at least an experimental SCIclIo
OF taxation. IL would have been wise
statesmanshlp to have avoided lhiS uh-
necessary issue. Prudence dlclales' ne
said. that this Congress should noI AZ
tempt to formulate new Democratic uoC-
triues TO which we have never been COM
mitted. but rather carry out pl@lseS VIC
have already made He believed IL was
the solemn duty OF a poltlcal parry ~
redeem promises upon which IL oDtalneu
power and on this point he referred 10
the President nominating and senate CON
firming officials for Territories ana the
District Of Columbia who were non-resl-
dents thereof, In violation ot tne piIh-
visions Of the Chicago platform lie re-
ferred 10 the refusal of the House OF
Representatives. to repeal the Federal tax
upon State bank circulation, such repeal
having been expressly favored in the ma
tional platform, while the same House
went out Of its way TO inject Popl-
lisuc income tax in "a Democratic tarlh blll,
and ne said the Senate is now asked 10
ratify that portion Of such inconsistent
action.
For one. I protest against population
OF the promises of the Democratic party
in order to adopt and carry out promises
I'm the Populist party" The income tax
was a war tax. IL had never been ap-
proved by a vote of the people, and there
was no genuine emergency calling for It's
adoption Ii is unfair he asserted, TO
those who might desire to support the
main features of an appropriation or
tariff measure to be obliged 10 accept
a questionable provision foreign to the
principal subject Of the bill itself or else
record themselves in opposition 70 the
whole bill. II a Democratic Congress is 10
be permitted 10 repudiate wel-established
Democratic principles. and 70 enunciate
new ones without the sanction Of the ma
tiona convention, and to compel their
support as a test Of party fealty, we may
next expect to hear Of the adoption I'm
tariff or appropriation bin Of Henry
Georges single tax theory or provision
abolishing all custOm-hOuses and resort
ing TO direct Federal taxation instead Of
q tariff for revenue, or providing for the
assumption of Government control and
the management OF all telegraphs rail-
roads and banks OF the country, or the
adoption Of any other wild and visionary
scheme Of socialism, paternalism or Popu-
ism which the majority may see ft to
sanction"
1t took Mr. Hnl two hours and three
quarters To read his speech.
II was well understood he said in con-
clusion. that senators intended to vote
for the income tax sections. not accord
I'M hafr r1gfft
10 the decree Of the party caucus He
trusted that such a humiliating spectacle
would not be witnessed. IL was even
boasted by some, he said. that the income
tax was the best feature of the tariff bin.
If that were so, then he could only say,
In the emphatic language Of the senator
from New Jersey (Smith). God help the
Democratic party"
The true statement of the case was
that Populisic votes were preferred 10
Democratic votes. He felt little person
al interest In the result. He was get
ting used TO defeat In the Senate, and
another defeat was a matter Of supreme
Indifference to him. But he would be
false 10 his country, false to his party.
and false to himself If ne did not raise
ls warning voice and announce TO his
fellow Democrats and to the country
az large his conscientious and mature
cnviction on this important subject I'm
scl great crisis OF the countrys and
Ne partys history.
speech against the income tax Sec
uol
mother instaiiment Of the Allen -Chand-
J ler quarrel was here injected into the
debate. Each Of these gentlemen grows
daily more bitter towards the other on
the floor Of the Senate at least and
both passed the lie. and you're no gen
ueman." in parliamentary forms
An argument against the income tax
hy Mr.. Hoar followed.
FIRST VOTE on THE INCOME TAX.
At the close Of Mr. Hoars remarks
an amendment was offered by Mr.. Aldricb
% change the limit for the existence
OF the income tax from January l. 1900
70 1888. The amendment was rejected
Yeas, p. nays. 80; as follows.
Yeas: Aidrich, Allison. Chandler, Cullom
Davis, Dolph, Frye Gallinger Hawley,
higgins, HOdr. Lodge. Mcmillan, Morrill,
Patton. Perkins, Patt. Power, Quay,
sherman. Shoup and Was slburn~2
Nays: Allen. Bate, Berry Blanchard,
Bricc, Carrey, CAL COckrel, X Du.
b1is, Faulkner. George, Gibson. German,
Harris Hunton. Irby, Jarvis, Jones
Ark). Kyle. Lindsay Mcpherson. Mar
tin. Mills, Mitchell t0re), Morgan MUIR
ply PascO, PETER, Pugh. Roach, Smith,
Teller. Turpe, Vest, Villas, Voorhees,
Walsh. and Whites.
The first committee amendment was
then agreed 10 without division), fix
INK the limit OF the tax at January l.
1900
The next committee amendment was
10 strike out OF the House bill the words
"Of every person residing In the United