Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-03-08

An Argument blade That 1t is Not
constitutional.

Washington, March 1.-THE supreme
court did not reach the income tax
cases until p. m. today when w. D.
Guthrie was recognized to open the
case for the appellants. lie appeared
especially for Messrs. Pollock and
Hyde, who appealed the cases against
the Farmers and Continental Trust
companies of New York from the de-
cision of the United States court of APP
peals for the Southern district of New
York
Mr.. Guthrie devoted himself TO an
outline or the argument proposed TO
be made by the counsel for the appel
lants and had not concluded when the
court, at o'clock, adjourned for the
day. He stated they would depend
principally upon showing that the
present income law is unconstitutional
because OF its want of uniformity, and
quoted at length from the provision of
the law to show that the tax Is not uni
form, contending that congress had no
right under the constitution to levy a
tax. duty, excise or import which was
variable or lacking in uniformity as to
individuals or corporations, because 1t
was the fundamental rule that burdens
IN these respects should be equal upon
all alike.
Mr. Guthrie said the two cases
against the two trust companies were
very similar, but he would devote him
self principally to the Pollock case, be-
cause in that case the interests in
volved were greater than the others,
but while this company conducts an
Immense business its business is one
which might be carried on as well by
private partnership as by a stock
company In which case II would be
exempt under the law from the income
tax. He said that MIR. Pollock was a
shareholder In this company. the net
incomes or profits from which during
the past year subject TO the income
tax. exceeds 100000, of which $4,000
represents rents OF real estate and
about 900 Investments In municipal
bonds, which latter investment could
not, he claimed. be taxed under
former decision of the supreme court
Mr., Guthrie asserted that the pro-
vision of the law cXemptlng all in
comes under $4,000 would cause 1t 10
fall upon less than 2 per cent of the
population of the United States, and
the law was therefore class legislation.
He also showed that the tax was not
uniform as regards corporations. Of
which favored class was exempted.
as, for instance, mutual insurance
companies and building associations. as
well as partnerships and religious and
benevolent institutions. AS to the ex-
emption OF churches. benevolent CON
Germs, etc, counsel would not have any
thing TO say, as there was enough in
the other exemptions in cases where
the exemptions We're IN The Interest Of
shareholders. though called by another
name. TO afford sufficient text for all
they could say.
As illustrative OF the fact Of the OPP
Grafton OF the law. he pointed out that
| individuals owning real estate bringing
an income OF $4,000 would pay $50 tax,
while corporation would be required
to pay double the amount.
He also instanced the case Of a part
nership Of 1--WE persons doing n business
amounting to $4,000 year which would
| he required to pay no tax while n cor
poration composed Of the same persons
| would be compelled to pay $500 In a
word. he said, the application Of the
law would vary according 10 ownership
| The corporation WAS only an aggre-
| cation OF individuals. and in most cor
porations part. at least, OF the stock
was owned by the middle classes.
Referring to the exceptions made In
the interest OF the mutual insurance
enn,nanIes. he asserted that In the
Tfnited States there were 1900 suct
Companies, and that OF these 1900 were