The evening world., 1894-06-26
HILLS new ATTACK.
Would Exempt State, County and
City Bonds from Income Tax.
Republicans Join Him in His Effort
TO That End.
Proposed Amendment Defeated, %
to 30, in the Senate.
nv Associated Press.)

WASHINGTON, June 26.-With the
thermometer standing at SO degrees in
the Senate Chamber at 10 o'clock to-day
the Senate entered upon the thirteenth
week of the tariff debate. At the open.
ing of the session, Mr.. Allen pop.
Neb.) made another Intellectual at
tempt to secure consideration for his
resolution directing the Secretary OF
the Treasury to inform the Senate of
the total number Of persons engaged
In protected industries. whose wages
might be affected by tariff legislation.
Mr.. Gallinger Rep., N. h objected
and Mr.. Morrill, CRep., VII moved to re-
fer 1t to the Finance Committee. Mr..
Allen gave notice that, as long as the
resolution remained Enacted upon, he
would object to all legislation by unani-
nous consent. Mr. Morrill's motion was
defeated bX a vote Of 16 to q.
At 1920 the Senate resumed the con-
slderation of the income tax provisions
of the Tariff bill.
Mr.. Hill Withdrew the amendment he
offered on Saturday 10 strike out the
provision exempting. the interest on
of the tax. Mr. HIN said his object in
offering tine amendment was to call the
attention OF the country to the fact that
$685., ooo@ Of property in Government
operation Of the income stax under the
law. Although the ostensible purpose
Of the income tax was to reach wealth
and equalize taxation. there was an enor-
nous Investment OF capital which the
income tax could not reach.
MIR. Hill then moved to exempt State,
county and municipal bonds. He argued
that taxation OF State bonds BY, the
Federal (,nvRrnnln hn
attack upon the administration of the
States. If the Federal Government had
the right to diminish the value OF State
bonds and securities. 1t had the right to
G. - doubtful stf RoMe;r in Justice to the
harshiy, Mr.. Hill Thought the States
should have the right To- issue bonds
without being subject to Federal taxa
ton.
Mr.; Vest, thought the exemption pro-
ton from that with reference to United
states bonds. II was no benefit to the
States or municipalities to exempt their
bonds The bonds were sold In. the open
markets. They went into the hands
Of private holders and should be sub
Ject to taxation.
begged the s SsRasa re s MF ais
proposed would add nothing to the con-
stitutional rights of the States. and
would take nothing away II 1t was fair
and right to exempt Government bonds,
State and municipal bonds, 1t would In
b Sona wis, wera fG' hi the 6dsr sta
taxation, they would bring less in the
market and probably have to bear higher
rates OF Interest. He maintained that
unless the States were placed on an
equality with the Federal Government
with regard to the taxation OF their
securities, great injustice would be
done.
IF the States by law specifically ex-
empted their bonds, could the United
States tax them?" asked Mr.. Plat (Rep.,
Comm.
ENTHUSIASTICALLY not" replied Mr.. Hill.
That would be beyond the constitu-
tional power Of Congress"
Mr. Chandler Rep., n. HI said that
although he had no particular interest
in making this bad bill any better, he
hoped. upon reflection. that the Demo-
and municipalities. when they were
sition than the United states.
Mr.. Mitchell Rep., Ore) agreed with
Mr.. Hin that the taxation of State
and county bonds was of doubtful con-
Mr.. Hill said that there could be no
answer to the argument in favor OF
exempting State, county and municipal
securities. He expressed the hope that
the Finance Committee would accept his
amendment.
Mr.. Sherman also took this view of
the proposition.
Mr.. Hills amendment was finally lost,
Is yeas to 30 nays.