The record-union., 1895-03-12
Special to the RECoRD-UNIox.


gument in sustaining the income tax law
before the Supreme Court to-day. Attor-
ney-General Olney, ex-senator Edmunds
and many other distinguished counsel in
the case occupied seats at the desk re-
served for attorneys. The courtroom was
crowded. Mr.. McMilIin, Mr.. Springer
and several other members of Congress
who had taken part in the enactment of
the income tax law were among those
present.
Mr.. Whitney addressed himself to the
question OF uniformity in taxation, in
answer to the charges that the income tax
violated the principle of uniformity. He
contended that the limit of 81, 900 fixed by
the law was not class legislation. If a
subsequent Congress had sought to amend
the law by including those not previously
exempted by the 81, 200 limit, this amend
ment would no doubt he class legislation,
as II would apply to distinct class. Mr..
Whitney reviewed prior decisions in in
surance and other cases. showing that the
Interpretation Of this court on class Iegis-
latIon would not apply to the income tax.
concerning the exemptions allowed TO
contain corporations, the Assistant AttOr-
ney-General said 1t was most surprising
that this was set up as d ground for in
validating the tax. He read from numer-
Gus Federal tax laws showing repeated
exemptions in the cases of art societies
and many other corporations. The court
had sustained tax exemption to manu-
featuring corporations in the District of
Columbia, and building and loan assoca-
tiOns and saving companies were fre-
quently exempted by law. During the
war The lawmakers even exempted the
mutual insurance companies from the
operations OF the general tax law.
Mr.. Whitney said that the Supreme
Court had already overruled the cOnten-
tiOn that the taxation of land values and
rentals, as made by the income tax, in
valid. The State taxes were against the
land and not against the individual, but
The income tax was not against the land,
but merely against the total income of
The Individual AS this income came in
part from land, il was merely an incl
dent. The income tax is in 10 sense a
land tax. 1t is not on the gross income
from land and other sources, but on the
net income.
Whitney took up the claim that the
Federal Government cannot tax munich
pal and local securities, as, for instance.
bonds issued by New York City. He
said 1t had been decided III the case of
BOnaparte against the State of MARYLAND
that state could tax bonds of the city or
state Of New ork. If the State could
exercise this power, why could not the
Federal Government do the same?
Whitney concluded at l:3O o'clock, and
was followed by Edmunds, counsel
against the tax. lie spoke quietly and
IL conversational tone, much as he did
when leading ngure OF the Senate. He
stated the contention OF his client against
the Invasion of his rights and an inspec-
ton Of his private books and papers If
there was constitutional provision pro-
tecung the individual, II was the rock
upon which the contention against this
tax was based. Edmunds read from the
Constitution as 10 the protection of pri-
vate rights. These provisions. he said.
were trILe, ana yet 1t seemed necessary in
these days, with such legislation before
US, to recall these constitutional bull
warks against an invasion of pri-
Tate rights. In a question OF this gray
lty he would 1eel disposed to ask the
court not only to pursue precedents, and
follow them in this matter, but to 90
back and rule upon the entire subject, SO
vital to sustaining private rights. The
worst tyranny OF history was that which
came III the gulse Of relief
lie first spoke OF the action of Congress-
IN endeayorlnG 10 take away from the
courts the right Of appeal for protection,
as was the case in the income tax law. He
did not think the time had come when
there should be no longer an appeal TO
The courts from the Acts of Congress. IL
was beyond the function OF Congress to
pass an Act that would strip the courts of
their rights, and this was Just as true as
to the rights of the citizen as to those of
the courts.
Speaking of the income tax law, he re-
1erred 20 the provision that the taxpayer
was required to make his return To
Deputy Collectors. He said the deputy
was not recognized as a legitimate officer
under the Constitution. Il do not how
ever" he said, mean to dwell on that
but merely to refer to it in passing as one
OF the points of the vice which bloom in
the garden of the last Congress"
lie criticised many other features of
the law providing for the collection of
taxes, and pointed out that it left no room
Tor resort or appeal to the courts, but LETT
10 the revenue officers the adjustment,
who, he SAID, were not only the final
judges, but the inquisltors as well. "It
Is true" he said, That these returns are
TO be regarded as confidential, but how
are we to know they Will always be
treated so; IL IS not posi- Die that they
may be treated. Is 1t not possible they
may be handled, for instance like the
condolences Of the United States Senate?'
Mr.. Edmunds then reviewed the case
" heretofore decided, which has been re-
1erred 10 in the previous argument, and
discussed the points involved at length.
lie was referring To the Hilton case, in
EOIVlng the tax on carriages, when Chief
Justice Fuller called his attention to the
TACT that Mr.. Hilton had an unusual num-
Der OF carriages, I25, as he remembered
Unusual IN mum bers, yes,v Ed
munds asserted, "but he possessed them,
AS many persons possesses virtue and
grace" lie asked the court to overrule
lts former decision in the income tax as
given In the Springer case. Let us,' he
salu, come back to the true rule OF the
constitution. We are to expect gradual
and indefinite similar departures from
the line marked out by the Constitution.
and we may depart further and further
from 1t until the last, like the mariner
alter storm, or the traveller in the
wilderness. After the stars again come
ont we are compelled to readIust our
course i'll the new light that is giyen.v
He argued that the past Congress had
overstepped the limits of the Constitution
IN impoaing this tax, because, he said. it
was short OF money. He argued that
under the law 30 per cent of the tax
would be paid by 2 per cent. of the tax
able voters. at becomes" said Ed
munds, IAN interesting subject of specu-
Iatlon as to how long the Government
can last under a system which allows
those to pay nothing to tax their fellow
cltlZens. One evil step will lead TO an
other as one vice follows another until
bye and bye we will have revolution,