The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-14
Counsel for Corporations Say
They Are Not Equally
Protected.
QUESTIONS OF UNIFORMITY.
Rich Men May Escape the Levy by
Putting Their Money in
Savings Banks.

w ASHlNGTON, ldTCu lO.-AL Jilt ODbIllllR
of the session of the Supreme Court Mr..
Choate, resumed his argument about the
constitutionality of the income tax. The
inevitable income of all accumulated
property, whether the rent of land or
the interest on lands, is, he claimed, neces-
sarily the subject of direct taxation and of
no other. He hoped to establish this fact
and to further show that such a tax was
subject to the rule of apportionment.
Whatever else was not included in the
term direct taxi certainly real estate
was included. There had been universal
assent to this proposition, and he would
take this as the basis of his first step. He
controverted the proposition that this
idea was to apply only to unim-
proved land, but commended that the
application was to all property designated
as real estate. He followed this argument
with the assertion that the income from
the@rent of real estate was indistinguish-
able from the tax on the real estate itself,
and combated the position of the Attorney
General that the income from rent after it
enters the pocket is money and is to be
considered as such. For that matter, any
tax on land was in substance and effect q
tax on its rental.
Returning to the position of the Attor-
ney-GeneraI that the proceeds were not
rentals, but money in the pocket, he de-
clared it was distinction without differ
ence and was a fiction which had been
stamped upon by the court with all its
might and quoted precedents to sustain
their disposition. Furthermore, he con-
troverted the right to tax money in the
Mr.. Choate contended that in exchange
for the surrender by States of the power to
collect duties, imposts and excise the Gen
eral Government had necessarily conceded
the protection of all men in their equality
before the law, and the rule of uniformity
must be observed. This rule had been
observed without exception by Congress in
all tariff acts.
Justice White here asked if the OBJ
servance of this rule would not destroy all
specific duties.
Mr.. Choate thought not, and he also dis
sented from a suggestion that a difference
was made in taxing men of different de-
grees of wealth. Such a construction
would involve a direct violation of the
constitution. Mr.. Carter had declared
that there was no help for it if a mistake
had been made in the law, but Mr.. Choate
contended that the court was here for the
purpose of proffering help in such cases.
No wonder, he said, the President, after
ten days deliberation, could refuse to put
his name to the bill. No wonder the Presi-
dent and the Secretary of the Treasury re-
fused to indorse it.
DO you" asked Justice Harlan, "dis-
pute the validity of any exem ption?"
Mr.. Choate replied that he did not, but
without explaining his reply, took up the
denial by the law of any exemption to cor
porations, contending for uniformity in
the treatment of corporations and individ-
ual persons. Mr.. Choate characterized as
"capricious" the exemption of the prop
erty of schools, churches and similar insti-
tutions, as we'll as the savings banks, loan
associations and mutual insurance COM
panies, and said that a far harsher term
would be justified. Was it just, for in
stance, to tax the people of Colorado and
Nebraska for the support OF Trinity Church
or Columbia College of New York?
Referring to the other exceptions. he
said that Mr.. Vanderbilt or Mr.. Astor
could put all his money into a savings
bank and thereby escape taxation under
the law.
why" he exclaimed, sit looks as il
there was job in it"
Mr.. Choate quoted from official records
to show the enormous extent of the bust
ness done by the mutual companies, de-
claring that there were no institutions in
the land which were more noted grabbers
for, and hoarders of, money than these
mutual companies.
At o'clock Mr. Choate reached his per-
grafton. He did not believe, he said, any
member of the court had ever sat in a case,
or that any of them would ever live long
enough to hear a case of more vital conse-
quence to the people of the country. The
question involved was whether we could
rely upon the guaranty given us by the
trainers of the constitution and under
which the nation had so far in its history
prospered. 1t was of the utmost impor-
lance to the future welfare of the country
that the court should see if it has the
power to decide such questions, and if it
finds it has that it should exercise it to
stop such legislation as this.
Nothing now remains but for the court
to determine the validity of the income tax.