The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-12-20

duct OF the pension officials. The commit
tee had boosted that $3,000,000 of pension
money had been saved last year. TIL,
mission of the examiners was to secure
evidence against, not in favor of, pension
ers and claimants. He favored an amend
ment that would cut off this auxiliary fol
more examiners and keep in the field only
the regular number 400.
MIR. Sickles Dem., n. " amid q roar
of Republican applause repudiated the
charge of wholesale fraud made against
pensioners and declared his unalterablt
opposition to the appropriation unless il
could be authoritatively shown that the
pension examiners provided for by ii were
employed to aid instead of embarrassing
claimants.
After some further debate on the sub
ject of this appropriation by Messrs.
Coombs and Daniels of New York,
Morse of Kansas, Bingham of Pennsyl-
vania, Tracey of New York and Grosve-
nor of Ohio, Mr.. Bartlett (Dem., N. "
got the floor and opened the discussion
of the income tax appropriation. He
was earnestly opposed to the vicious tax.
The bill he had introduced for its re-
peal he knew would never see the light
of day and the opponents of that tax
must make their fight against the appro-
priation necessary to make it operative.
He realized the majority of his hearers
We're against him and the Republicans
would not support him as q party. Yet
he did not consider it a party question.
The Democrats had, in his opinion,
made Il fatal mistake in passing it anC
that it was mistake had been salts.
factorily proven within n few weeks at
the ballot box. This burden would not
fall on the rich. Ultimately the pool
would pay it. The experience of history
a n
tax. He gave it as his opinion that
when tested in the supreme court il
would be decided to the capitation tax
! and therefore, not being apportioned
among the states according to population
, unconstitutional.
/ Mr.. Barthold (Rep., o. wanted to
know whether, if the income tax was
annulled, Mr.. Bartlett would be willing
to revise the tariff so as to make up the
deficiency in the revenue.
| Mr.. Bartlett replied that he had al
I ways been willing TO vote for tariff fol
revenue, and for revenue only.
!! Mr.. McMillin Dem.. Tenn.l defended
the income tax as just, constitutional
and Democratic measure. In the course
of a hot colloQuy with Mr.. Bartlett OF
New York that followed, Mr.. McAlillh
said in order to show the fragrant wrong
that is done by the system of taxation
will call your attention to William Wal
dorf Astor. This gentleman ran fol
congress once against the present gov
ernor of New York, Mr.. Flower, and
! was defeated. His defeat soured and
embittered him against the government
and our institutions. He moved abroad
and not content with what he could say
against America himself, and our Ils'y
. tutions, he purchased one of the ablesI
journals in Great Britain. He lives
| there now and ms paper is doing us worst
against our institutions. The income OF
| this man, derived from property i'll New
| York, is more than SJ,0O0,OOO year and
| he does not pay-hc does pay n state tax
! county tax and municipal tax it is true
| but he does not pay the government OF the
] United States and has not paid $40 in IL
years, although he has this colossal for.
| tune, which is protected by our army and
| defended by our navy"
Mr.. BARTLETT will answer the gentle
man that there is no better payer in the
state of New York than William Waldorf
Aston; no family in the state or county
| of New York that contributes more large,
| ly to taxation purposes state, county and
| municipal than does the Aston family.
| How about the federal tax, If 1T be your
purpose to prescribe the richF' began
Mr.. Bartlett.
But Mr.. McNIillin quickly dsclaimed
| such Il purpose.
"The secretary of the treasury reports,
| interrupted Mr.. Strauss dem. n. ",
that there will be II surplus of revenue
| to the extent of 100000 for the year end,
ing June 80, 1895. Now, if there should
| be II surplus of revenue, is not the gentle
man willing to have the income TAX re-
| pealedF
at would not be-" replied Mr.. McMil'
| lin. until you have complied with the
order. / shall be ready to discuss the
question of the repeal of this tax, but
even then ] would take taxation oil cloth
| ing and other necessaries of life rather
than off of wealth"
Mr.. Henderson of Virginia and Mr.
| Cochran of New York both stated that
| they considered Il debate on the merits OF
the income tax Improbable Both hoped
that the elections had furnished an in.
| tellcctual awakening in the Democratic
| side which would result in the repeal OF
| this OdiouS tax.
| Mr.. Cochran said he and his New York
| colleague had believed that tariff reduc,
| tion meant stimulus to trade that would
result in increasing revenues to the GOV,
eminent. Were they now to be told
| that the revenue reductions
would deprcss instead OF stimulate
revenue? If so, then revenue roiorm II
what its enemies termed it-war on IN
dustry and mnace to the c0untry's pros,
| perity. Rep. applause.) but l am stu
| n believer in tariff reform continued
| Mr. Cochran. 81 still believe in the
principles of taxation; ! believe prosperity
would have followed the enactment OF the
| Wilson BILL that our imports and exports
would have been quadrupled and our rev,
enues increased instead of diminished. ii
one man in the United States is so strong
that he can drive the people into q mis-
taken idea. he IL stronger than he should
he. If Mr.. Astor has been able to drive
the flower of Tennessee Democracy INC
| Millin) into his hole, then MIR. Astor II
more powerful in the Democratic party
than he ever proved himself in the ranks
of the Republican party"
After short speech by Mr.. Breckin
ridge, who was in charge OF the bill, IL
which he defended the income tax and
attributed the late Democratic defeat t[
divisions among the leaders, and predicted
that the younger Democrats VINO suffered
defeat last November would return u
congress along with purified party. =,
General debate closed and Mr.. Bartlet'
moved TO strike out the appropriation 1oi
| the collection of the income tax.
| Mr.. Cam of Illinois, Mr.. Damn OF New
Jersey, Mr. Bryan Of Nebraska and Mr
| Breckinrdge Of Kentucky still further
debated the question under the 1-mlnut'
rule.
| When the vote on the Bartlett amend
mend was taken by tellers and the amend
ment was defeated-54 to 12-Mr. Sicklei