The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1894-06-25
ON THE INCOME TAX.
SENATORS SPEND Il WHILE IN LIVE
DISCUSSION OF THE MEASURE.
Kill Fights 1T to the Last-vest Gets in q
G God Rap TIE New Yorker which
tho Latter Enjoys.

Washington June pa resolution here
tofore offered by Senator Call for the ap-
pointment of a special committee OF 1i7e
senators to investigate the subject Oh Or
ganized efforts of corporations to cohTol
the election of members Of state legislatures
and members OF congress and to influence
the legislation of congress, was taken UP
Immediately after the meeting Of the SEN
ate, and after remarks by Senator Call 1t
was suggested by Mr.. Sherman That the
scope OF the proposed Investigation was
too broad, covering as it did the Wnole
United States, and that no sufficient 1ounoa-
ton seemed to have been laid for it. Ii IL
were confined to the state of Florida ne
would not make any objection. The resoiu-
ton was not so modified and it went over
without action. The tariff bill was then tax
en- up the question being On the various
amendments to the income tax pioVlSioh,
and Mr. Hill became again the cenlrai
figure Of the proceedings. He started out
at once and talked for an hour and three
quarters worrying alike the senators Oh MS
own party and those Of the populist party.
He spoke of tie latter as coming TO the
front like the rubbish and dirt in a ho.ing
Dot Of water" and he said that 'barped
wire" the only thing that it had optalheu
by it's coalition with the democrats-Wfss us
fit emblem. Talking upon the income taA
feature Of the BILL Mr. Hill commented on
in italics in the bill, showing at first the
profits on cotton were not to be accounted
for; and he minated that the intention had
been at first to exempt the profits maze
from cotton and that that was one lndica-
ton of sectionaism in the blil
Mr. Hill was followed by Gallinger, repuh-
lican. of New Hampshire, in q speech
against the tariff bill in general and against
the income tax feature of it in particular
Mr.. Roar gave notice of an amendment to
the inheritance clause to the income tax
provision The amendment proposes to ex-
empt from liability to the tax inheritances
from ancestors or lineal descendants and
inherttances and gifts between husband
and wife.
After some remarks by Mr.. Allen, the
committee amendments to section 54-the
first OF the income tax sections-wefe agreed
TO without q division.
An inquiry was made by Mr. Allison,
to the amendment offered yesterday by Mr..
Vest to reduce the exemption from $4,000 to
So 900.
Mr.. Vest said that he withdrew it. He had
offered it under a misapprehensicn, suppos-
Ing that his collea CUES the finance COM
rnittee favored it. He had learned this morn
ing, however, that they did not all favor
it. His action had not been Influenced by
any argument made in the senate. He took
the full responsibility OF withdrawing the
amendment. ...!
Hill Is Persistcnt.
Mr. Hill then offered an amendment re-
ducing the exemption to $1,000. Rejected
yeas IS; nays, AZ.
Mr.. Hill then moved to amend by making
the exemption $1,000. Rejected-yeas, &c;
nays, 3S.
He then moved to make it $3.50.
Mr.. Kyle suggested that if MI. Hill would
graduate his amendment it would get more
votes.
The reply Of Mr.. Hill was that he pre-
pared his amendments and that gradual
ted proposition had been voted down yes
terday by pretty large vote. This, he
said, was the only practical way Of reach
ing the point.
The amendment was retected-yeas. 25;
nays, 3S.
Then Mr.. Fill reached the amendment
offered by Mir. Vest to make the exemption
1900, and said that it seemed yesterday to
be universally approved. He suggested
that the amendment should be determined
by it's merits, and not by the fact of it's
being offered by one senator or by another.
This amendment was rejected-yeas, 50;
nays, IS, as follows:
Teas-MesSrs. Aldricb, Allison Carey,
Chandler, Cullom, Davis, Dubois, Frye,
Gallnger, Hale, Hansbrough Higgins, Hill,
Iioar, Irby, Lodge Henderson, Mitchell Of
Oregon, Morrill,, Patton, PETER, Perkins,
PIatt, Power, Proctor, Quay, Sherman,
Shoup, Teller and Washburn-30
Nays-Messrs. Allen Bate, Berry, Black
burn, Caffcry, Gail, Cockrell, Coke Doph,
Faulkner, George, Gibson, German, Gray,
Harris, Hawley, Hunton, Jarvis, Jones OF
Arkansas, Kyle, Lindsay, Mcpherson, Mar
tin, Mills, Mitchell of Wisconsin, Morgan,
Murphy, Palmer, Pasco, PuGh, Roach,
smith, Turpie, Vest, Villas, VOORHEES,, Walsh
and White-36.
1t Stands at $4,000.
The exemption, therefore, remains fixed
at $1,000.
Mr.. Hill then moved to postpone for one
year the time for the income tax to begin
and to end-1S96 and 1901 Rejected-yeas,
&c; nays, Il.
This finished the amendments to section
81, and 50 then taken up. The COM
mttee amendments, mostly Of a formal
character, We're agreed to.
Mr.. Hoar offered the amendment of which
he had given notice a couple OF hours be-
fore, to exempt from the tax inheritances
from lineal ancestors or descendants and
between husband and wife.
Mr.. Hoars amendment was rejected
yeas, %; nays, So
Mr.. Eoar then moved the same amend
ment, only restricting It to inheritances be-
low $1,000
This amendment was rejected-yeas, 81;
nays, g.
on motion CT Mr.. Hoar, and withoue> op-
position an exemption from the income tax
was made in favor of judges OF United
States courts.
Mr. Plat moved to strike out the proviso
that only one deduction of $4,000 shall be
made from the aggregate income Of all the
members of q family. The vote on this
amendment was-yeas, 80; nays, 81, as fol-
lows:
Yeas-Messrs. Aldrich, Carey. Chandler,
Culponl, Davis, Dixon, Dolph, Dubois, Frye,
Gallinger, Gray. Hale, Hansbrough, Haw-
ley, Higgins, Hill, Hoar, Lodge, Mitchell of
Oregon, Morgan, Patton, Perkins, Plat,
Proctor, Quay, Sherman, Shoup, Squire,
Teller and Washbufn-30.
Nays-Messrs. Allen, Bate, Berry, Black
burn, Coke, Daniel, Faulkner, George, Glib
son. Gordon, German, Harris, Hunton, Irby,
Jarvis Jones Of Arkansas, Lindsay, Nc
Laurin, Martin, Mills, Mitchell of Wiscon-
son, Murphy, Pasco, Pugh, Roach, Smith,
Turpie, Vest Villas, Walsh and White-31
An Enormous Revenue.
An inquiry was made by Mr.. Sherman as
to the estimated annual yield of the in
come tax. 1t stated, in answer, by
Mr. Vest that it had been estimated a $780,,
600 600 but that he could find reliable
data for such an estimate.
To the nrinciD1a