New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-01-15
THE DEBATE IN DETAIL.

~ T., ,4-In beginning his speech
Mr. German said that the pending propos'.o' ~
a s,mple and plain one. An appproPi H'o'I
nos before the Senate providing for oe"ciei'''''
- ,ber, one 10 enable the Secretary OF Inc
aasurv TO carry out the law for the coiiec''oh Oh
,or,o tax II was the duty OF Congress 10
o,,da the money TO- that purpose. lie quo'e"
,rom Mr. Hills speech and referred app'oNi"e's ~
A. sherran's assertion that ample proNiS'o" NV"
', 49, ,or testing the constitutonay OF this or
on, other law "3ut what the senator from w."
VII desires" Mr.. German continued is pro-
,e,o sa,a,a,e and Neutrality-suspicious. In It's case
ro,.,s,on that would enable any taxpayer 10
,,snend the income tax. by injuncuohs 10 'e'e'a
.ba r,,le and 10 prevent the money coh'lhs INV
treasury until every question that might Nv
nv every unwilling taxpayer shou.u oe 49,. -
.ha Snnreme Court OF the United states sue" an
-, NJ German declared would be wrong
,,o,la be beyond the power or the Sehate' anu VIZ"
no destructive to the interests OF 'ne i'V'
rad been opposed TO the income YAK az P ~
H., I'M, he had accepted II as part OF a COM
P'NO,' ,raa, reform He knew that opposition
- .,,on Furnished IAN opportunity Tor defna-
,,oo,es" But no political party could i've that
o,,d deliberately cut down receipts whlIe IL hep'
-, axnenses and then issue goid pon"S Wy '''e
hundred millions per annum TO pay the oiu"'''
..,.rses Of the Government. Ana YET thal was
precisely the proposition presented 70 .''e ~
"a sunpor,ed by the public press throughout tne
.rr The Senate had added sO0oo,0o to the VII
.or Tariff bill as 1t came from the House anu IL
So "a sunnosed that the law would not have pro-
80 s,escent revenue he would never have voted
o., Z. He believed that the Tariff law AS II $1,000
- ~, nroduce revenue sufficient 10 meet the
.xnn,ses n, the Government for the fiscal year lS"
=, ,,r,bcr discussing the Tariff law. MI German
said: .,,o, -, ,h
you c,n,o, alimin .te a single provision or the
Tariff law which brings revenue INTO the ,
without substituting something in us place that VIII
produce An equal amount OF revenue. ana Tspeaf
that there Is no justification or ehcuse ioi aF 10
show tina, this body legally ado 10 tne @
an equal amount by other provisiohs-ai' na'
no. be done. There never was more na%ai uo s
undertaking than that Of revising the farm dw az
The time the Democratic party undertook IT, me
bil was a compromise measure: and no Dill cou!d
have passed The senate except by a compromise to
%ncn every Democratic Senator except tne Sthato,r
from New.iork tMr. HID agreed. AS whcie anu
as u stands to-day the Tariff law II the act OF he
peihocrauc party. and II Is the beet IariH law ,na'
Senator from New-York not party 10 that com.
promise. aere II something in the atmosphere OF
Northern .,ew-fork which II seems to me. makes
~ inposslDie TOT statesman from that section ever
70 coinProilhlse; u-aughter) The question then was
the Mckinley Act or the pending bill But the Sena
tor from York told his colleagues on this side
% the chamber: Either give me- my WAY. or YOU
shall never pass the bill" In that compromise
put this income tax. Now nigh, excuse the Sena-
tor from NewYork for antagonizinq This nrovision
sidering the Tariff bill he only onposed the in
come tax feature OF ii. but he Joined With ali the
extreme tariff refOrmers who wanted IN cut down
the revenue from customs II that Senator had had
his way. he would have had $3.50 COCOON of bonds TO
Issue In order to pay the current exepnses of the