St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-01-12
HILL ON INCOME TAX.
David B. Vigorously Attacks
the Law in the
Senate.
BLOT ON TARIFF REFORM.
Forced on Senate, He Says,
as Price Of Any Legis-
lation
BLOT ON TARIFF REFORM.
HOT SESSION IN HOUSE.
Solons Get Stirred Up Over
Granting Pension to
Gen. MeClernand.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11.-Practically
the whole of today's session was oceu-
pied in the discussion of Mr.. HIPS
amendment to the urgency deficiency
bill, designed to afford an opportunity
to test the constitutionality of the IN
come tax law. Mr.. Hill delivered long
and carefully prepared speech in sup
port of the appropriation to make the
law operative. but soon drifted into a
discussion of the silver question in
which lie said that no currency bill
could pass that was not liberal towards
silver.
Mr.. Quay (Pa.) supported Mr.. HilPs
amendment, and said it would be the
duty of the next Republican congress to
repeal the law. Messrs. Sherman (O.)
and Mitchell (Or) thought the appro-
priation should be made. Before adj
journment Mr.. Morgan (Ala.) raised,
and the chair sustained, point of order
against the amendment, from which
Mr.. Hill appealed, and action on this
will be had tomorrow.
Before proceeding with his speech,
Mr.. Hill made a statement regarding a
remark in the speech Of Mr.. PETER yes
terday, bearing upon his (HillS) OppoSi-
ton TO the law. Mr. Hill was under the
impression that Mr.. PETER had charged
him with tilibustering, and said that he
knew of nothing that had taken place
since he was member of the senate
that justified the senator from Kansas
in charging that this bill was to meet
with any filibusteriEg so far as he Child
was concerned.
Mr.. PETER declared that he had OF
used the word "fiibustering" since he
was a member OF the senate. He had
said the senator from New York and
the senator from Pennsylvania Quay
had made up their minds to defeat the
collection of the income tax if in their
power to do so. and that the amend
ment proposed by them was the first
step in that proceeding.
Mr.. Hill first argued against the
COnstiLutf0nality
of the law, and, referring to the exemp-
gress the right to exempt a class. He
did not ask that the law be repealed at
this session of congress. He recognized
that as impossible; nor did he ask its
repeal because it was appOrtioned ac~
cOrding to the last census. He attacke q
the regulations of the treasury for the
collection of the tax, and said he was
Tn hn
ury Interpretation of the law and the
interjection therein of instrumentaii>
les not contemplated by the senators.
He was within bounds when he char
acterized the feature of the pending bill
relating to the income tax as sllpShOd
arrangement, under which citizens had
no prOte ctiOn.
Another serious ambiguity in the law
was what assessment or whose assess
ment is to be final? Is the taxpayer to
have any appeal or the commissioner?
There was nothing IN any section of the
income tax of 1894 that authorized suit
against the tax collector Or any one else
to recover back taxes Illegally exacted.
This, he asserted. was one of the most
important questions in this discussion.
He asked where in the present law
was there any power given to the COM
missioner of internal revenue or
to any other officer to return taxes
enormously collected. Mr.. Hill
spoke of how hard it would be to
maintain a law to which the legal pro-
fession was opposed, and of how the
men involved would be enlisted in the
service of the lobbyists and the lawyers
at both ends OF Pennsylvania avenue.
1t was the duty of the senate to remove
the
Antiquities in the Law
while the matter was before it. II the
antiquities were not removed it was
reasonably certain that the experiences
connected with the direct taxes of the
war period and the refund would be re-
peated. Taxpayers would besiege the
treasury, court of claims and congress
for refund of the tax.
The senator also questioned the right
of congress under the constitution to
tax the income from notes. bonds or
other securities issued by states or
minor divisions of states. The income
tax was not for securing revenue only,
but TO harass and worry, and he asked:
''ShalI the inquisitorial forms proposed
by the treasury department be tolerated
by congress? The great newspapers of
New York city were organized AS COR
porations under the New York laws,
and must return their annual profits
and pay per cent thereon
Why, the senator asked, could not the
government be content with plain,
trustworthy statement of the annual net
profits of the enterprise. Many of the
questions put forward in the treasury
regulations had no warrant in the law
unless the law empowered the depart
ment to put any question IL pleased,
Many of the questions were absurdly
inquisitorial. He bad no expectation
that this congress would repeal the law
now. An appropriation was wanted to
carry it out.
He conceded the regular rule to be
that there ought to be an appropriation
to carry out the existing law. He had
always bean believer In that doctrine.
The Question had been suggested
whether this appropriation was not
taken out of the rdinary rule. The
law had never been enforced. 1t
existed in the statutes, that was true,
but for all practical purposes and effect
the law was just going on the statute
books. 1t was not properly part of