The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-04-19
Senator Smiths Question to the South


One effect Of the proposal to impose an
income tax has been to raise suddenly and
signally the reputation Of the United States
Senate. For breadth and accuracy OF
knowledge. for clearness and cogency OF
reasoning, and for genuine oratorlcal power
rs distinguished from empty defamation.
tho speech made by Senator HILL Of New
York. and that delivered by Senator JAMES
SMITH. Jr.. OF New Jersey. may fairly be
compared with any that bave been heard In
the Federal Senate House during the last
thirty years. The facts arrayed and the
arguments advanced challenge the most
searching scrutiny and bear triumphantly
the test Of type. which Is fatal to sophisms.
rodomontade. and demagogy.
We advise thoughtful men to preserve
Senator SMITHS speech. which we printed
In full on Wednesday, and to ponder care
fully his statement Of facts and principles.
and the application Of these to the pro-
posed tax on incomes. They will find that
among other things. he proves that such a
measure not only would lack the pretext Of
necessity, but would be inherently absurd.
sectional. sociallstic. despotic. un-Demo-
cratic. and un-American. Nor will any
candid man be able TO resist the Senator's
conclusion. that political party which. in
the face OF unmistakable warnings. loads
the statute book with a law Justly open to
such criticism. will forever forfeit its title
to ascendancy throughout the geographical
section which Is made the victim Of oppres-
sive discrimination.
Il is needless to dwell on Senator SMITHS
statistical demonstration that an income
tax ls superfuous. In view OF the admission
made by Senator VOORHEES, that the Tariff
bill In the form submitted to the Senate will
yield surplus almost exactly equal to tho
amount which he expects the tax on in
comes to yield. That part Of the Senator's
speech which ought to have especial weight
with his fellow Democrats. points out the
deplorable tendency OF the impost to inject
the virus OF sectional distrust and aninos-
ity into the Democratic brotherhood. and to
transform. for the second time. the Democ-
racy from a party representing the whole
country into an isolated and vindictive geo.
graphical faction.
The pretence made by the champions OF
the tax that It is not sectional In purpose Is
easily disposed OF by the Senator from
New Jersey. Whore the effects OF meas
ure lie on the surface. mon endowed with
sense enough to earn the pay OF legislators
must be presumed to contemplate them.
II any members Of the House OF Represent
atlves were unaware OF the sectional Incl
dence Of the income tax. they must have
voted with their eyes shut. VIGOROUSLY
sectional was the operation of the income
tax levied during the civil war. which
continued In force from 1853 to 1873
Innsmuch as the taxable minimum income
was first placed at 5000. and was after
ward fixed no higher than $1,000 a year.
1t might, indeed. have boon expected
that the West and even the impover-
ished South would contribute a share OF
the proceeds not grossly disproportion-
ate to their population. As a matter of
fact. Of the whole proceeds Of the tax dur
Ing ten years, the thirteen Southern States
paid SO per cent; the Pacific States and
Territories. "a per cent: twenty Western
States and Territories. 1919 per cent. On the
other hand. the six New England States
paid 1874 per cent. and the five Middle
States. namely. New York. New Jersey.
Pennsylvania. Maryland. and Delaware.
with the District OF Columbia. 5s.4 per cent.
or more than half Of the entire amount col
lected. New Jersey alone paid more than
Indiana, Iowa. Wisconsin. Minnesota. Kan
sas. Nebraska. Dakota. Montana. Idaho.
and Colorado combined. New York paid
more than all the Western States and Terri
tories. all OF the Southern States. and all OF
the Pacific States put together.
Senator SMITH admits that. owing to
the remarkable development Of the South
and West since the civil war. the share OF
the product Of an income tax contributed
by those sections would now be less eyre
giously disproportionate. provided the same
taxable minimum. to wit. an income Of 5000
or 81. 900 year. should be retained. Why
Is that minimum not retainsd2 Has II been
discarded for no other purpose than to
make sure that the incidence OF the new
income tax shall be fiagrantly sectional
Was 1t because $4,000 year represents at
four per cent interest a capital OF 500. 900.
which. In all those parts OF the South and
West where rents are low and food is cheap,
is accounted q handsome fortune II the
purpose Of fixing the taxable minimum un-
der the proposed law was not sectional.
those who hXed 1t must have been blind.
There Is not a competent statistielan in the
country who will not confirm Senator
SMIFHs computation that. If the proposed
income tax is ever levied. the Middle States
will again pay more than fifty per cent OF
the whole proceeds. New England as much
as the whole West. and the South less than
six per cent. Of the total.
Not only Is the income tax sectional in
tendency. and probably In design also but
1t Is sectional as regards the agency by
which 1t was driven through the House OF
Representatives. Senator SAITH reminds
US that the House never had a chance OF
voting on the income tax as a separate pro
posAl. but had 10 say yea or nay to the en-
tire internal revenue amendment Of the
Tsrih bill. which was saddled with the tar
on incomes. Some members. therefore.
who were opposed 70 the lAst-named impost.
reluctantly aequisseed In It. sooner than
repudiate the internal revenue amendment
] as a WhOld Nevertheless. for the income