The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-05-09
HIS INCOME TAX ARGUMENT
CLOSES WITH A IDENTIFICATION OF
BIG MUTUAL CORPORATION.
Suureme Court Takes the Case Under
Consideration and May Render an
Opinion Monday, May 20.


under consideration. On the 2oth OF this
month the court Will meet probably for the
last time this term, 70 render its decision
in pending cases. and it is expected that it's
conclusions on the income tax case will be
announced at that time. Mr.. Joseph III.
Choate OF New York, finished the closing
argument which he had begun yesterday.
speaking until l. o'clock and receiving the
closest attention from the justices and a
crowd of spectators. 1t has been generally
remarked that interest in the rehearing has
been much less intense than at the first ar
gument. Justice Jackson was one of the
most attentive men on the bench through
out the hearing. and seems to have borne
the strain well, considering the condition OF
his health.
Before the argument was begun to-day
Attorney-general Olney moved the admis-
sion to the Supreme Court bar of Mr.. j.
Walter Blandford, the private secretary to
the Attorney-general, and the clerk admin
istered the oath to Mr.. Biandford. Attor-
ney Shellebarger, Of the firm Of Shellebar-
ger & Wilson, which represented the ap-
pellant in the Moore case, asked for leave
to deliver a brief oral argument in that
case. after MIR. Choates plea, asserting
that Mr. Moore's attorneys had not made
any oral presentation of his case before a
full bench. and thought they were entitled
to that privilege. The request, however,
was refused. 1t apparently came as some
what of a surprise to the court, and brief
consultation was held by the Chief Justice
with his associates, after which he told
Mr.. Shellebarger that il would be quite i'm
possible for the court TO grant the request.
He added that the present hearing was
being conducted on a special order. and
said it could not be interfered with by giving
70 q
that leave had already been given to nle
briefs i'm the Moore case, and that these
would be considered, but that no oral arSu-
ment could be heard.
CHOATE REPLIES TO OLNEY.
Mr. Choate then began the second INSTALL
ment OF his argument. he first took up for
examination the argument of the Attorney
general that il the decision in regard to
rentals was to stand there should be no
limit of time the exemption should run.
The Attorney general had pleaded that
with such a ruling in force 1t might be i'm
possible to ever tax the proceeds derived
from rents, however they might be invest
ed Mr. Choate said in reply that it was
sufficient that the law left no such question
open The provision was tor taxing the
rents at the moment of their receipt, and
he for one would not be so foolhardy as to
claim that when the rent money would be
reinvested it would not be subject to the
original ruling of the court i'll this case.
Mr. Choate contended that OF the vast sum
expended in the civil war very small
proportion had been derived from the in
come tax which was in operation at the
time.
Taking up the thread of his affirmative
argument, Mr.. Choate declared that the
question of taxation had been one of the
most prominent in the minds OF the trainers
of the Constitution. The members of that
body were the representatives of men who
knew all about the question, for they had
studied it here as their ancestors had in
England under the PlantaSenets. the Stuarts
anu the Tudors. Mr.. Choate then proceeded
on the basis that the court had decided that
lands were to be free from direct taxes and
that there TO be no difference for tax
purposes between the body Of the land and
its proceeds. He then entered on the discus
sion of the undecided questions, contending
that there were the same reasons for ex-
empting incomes that existed for exempting
bonds and real estate.
Mr.. Choate contended that there had never
been suggestion of difference between
tax on the body of real estate and the
income of real estate in the matter OF d-
rect taxes Further on, Justice Harlan
asked Mr.. Choate IL he meant by a general
tax on. personal property tax on all
personal property of every kind.
Not ALL Mr.. Choate replied, because 1
admit the right of exemption"
Justice Harlan-Does tax law that
reaches only a part of personal property
come under that heading?
Mr.. Choate-In New York there is a vast
body OF personal property and the govern
ment levies on the general body of citizens
except inmates of tenement houses, nearly
one-half Of the population, yet l call that
a general assessment, not excepting the
exemption. 1t is a tax that cannot be
shifted, and tax that cannot be avoided.
But the question whether tax. on real
estate can be shifted l will leave to
political economists with whom 1 have no
relations and hope never TO have relations.
Mr.. Choate looked at the Attorney-gen-
eral when he spoke of political economists
and there was laughter, rare demonstra-
tion in the Supreme Court.
Justice Harlan asked if the counsel would
No fn< an tr,nn 6nn6 6e 1t-4a
tax that would have to be apportioned
and. upon receiving an affirmative reply,
asked If the same was true of a tax on
Mr.. Choate answered: THAT is bus-
ness. and this court has over and over
again decided that Congress can tax a
STARE DECIsIs.
In discussing the principle of stare de-
cisis. which he defined as the rule of
standing by a former decision whether right
or wrong, he said that he was constrained
to believe that two of the justices had
only consented to the former decision in
Difference TO that principle. sYour honors
are sworn to obey the Constitution as the
primal law" he said, Every act of Con-
gress stands in the light of it or must fall.
Must not every decision of this court that is
found to be in conflict with the Constitu-
ton by the light of the latest evidence and
the most complete information also fall?'
Then Mr.. Choate continued: Regarding
the statement that former income taxes will
have to be paid back IL the court reverses
the Springer rule there is no Springer rule.
L submit that with such consequences
that your honors have nothing 10 do. That
is not an argument addressed TO qu{s-
tion of law or constitutionality. moral
argument, the Attorney-general calls il. l
call il an immoral one The idea of the
Attorney general standing up here for the
Nation and asking that because the gov
ernment has collected much money illegally
in the past it must go on collecting money
illegally. But IL will not be asked to give
back any dollar of IT."
Mr.. Choate next considered the exemp-
tions made in the direct tax law, and in
doing so made especial reference to the
mutual insurance companies. As going to
show the magnitude of the operations of
these companies he could, he said. mention
one such company whose accumulated prop
erty amounted TO $2O4. 00o. An exemption
such as this was beyond all bounds of rea-
son. DO YOU know" he exclaimed. What
this concern is that Is given the vast ad-
vantage implied in this exemption? 1t
goes under the reputable name OF moneyed
corporation. II is a moneyed monster. 1t
lives upon money; Ii swallows money, II
digests money; IL breeds money. IL lays
eo'fer eggs bv the bucketIui every day
and then weaves golden coils about them
10 warm and vivify them it has as many
arms as there are States in the Union which
1t is constantly putting out IN al directions