The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1895-03-12

That tho Inquisition of the Collcc-
tors IL an Invasion OF Constitutional
Fights.
| wAsnIScroS. D. G., March n.-As.
,..aut Attorney General Whitney re.
,uned his argumen. in sustaining tho
incoue tax law before tho supreme
| ,,ur,oi the United States to-day. At.
,,raey General 0lney, ex-senator Ed.
nuuds aud other distinguished counsel
lathe case. occupied seats at tho dcsls
riesyci for attorneys. The court room
VS. crowded, Mr.. McAlillen. Mr.. Spring.
l and several other uiembers OF Con.
ues. who hal taken part In tho enact
men. oil the income tax being among
4 the Interested listeners. I, Mr.. Whitney
addressed himself 10 the question OF
Uniformity in taxation, in answer to the
chatgus that the income tax violated the
principle OF uniformity. He contendcd
tn. tho limit OF 900 fixed by the law
was not class legislation. II subse-
ouca: Congress had sought 10 amend
the law by including those not previous.
i exempted By the $1,000 limit this
amendment would no doubt bo class leg
i.la.on, as ii would apply to a distinc,
class Mr.. Whitney reviewed prior dc.
t., tps arl All
showing that the Interpretation OF this
court on class legislation would not ap.
ply to the income tax.
CORPORATIONS EXEMPTED.
Concerning the exemptions allowed
TO certain corporations, the assistant
attorney general said it was most sur
p,ising that this was set up Us ground
:or invalida,ing tho tax. He read from
numerous federal tax laws showing 70.
seated exemptions in the cases OF art
societies and many other corporations,
The cour, had sustained tax exemption
10 manufacturing corporations in the
District of Columbia, but building and
loan associations and saving companies
we're frequently exempted by law, as
they were made up OF poor people to
whom the law gave the special consider
2.ion. During the war the lawmakers
even exempted the mutual insurance
company from the operations Of gem
er,l tax Law.
Mr. Whitney said that the supreme
court had already, overruled tho conten-
ton tina. the taxation OF land values aud
a, d. kv kn ,,a t,x
SAs invalid. Tho state taxes were
azainst the land. and not against the in
tyidual, but the income tax was no.
against tho land, but against the total
income of the individual. That this in
come came in part from land was mere.
ly IN incident. The income tax ia in
no sense land tax. 1t Is not on gross
income from land or other SOURCES, bu;
on the net income. Mr.. Whitney tooS
up the claim that the federal govern.
neat cannot tax municipal and local
securities ileld by individuals, as for in
stance, bonds issued by Now York city.
lie said it had been decided iu tho case
Of Bonaparie against the atate OF Mary.
land that n state could tax bonds OF the
city or state OF New York. II tho state
could exercise this power why could not
the federal government do the same?
Mr. whitney took recent issue OF
New York city bonds as au illustration.
It would DO nost valuable privilege II
the city, in advertising he bonds, stated
they would be exempt from taxation.
Those Who bought tho bonds paid for
them in money which until then had
been subject to the operation OF the in
come tax. There was no reason, there
!2'e, that 10 changing the form OF n
piece OF property from money to bonds,
an individual could exempt himself
from tax. Mr.. Whitney concluded At
l:20 p. m.
NE. EpMusDs' ApDgEss.
lie was followed by Mr.. Edmuuds,
counsel against tho tax Ho spoke qui.
etly and in conversational tono, much
4, no did when leading figure OF tho
senate. He stated tho contention OF his
Client against M Invasion OF his rights
and an inspection Of his private books
ani 1apers. I! there was consti.u.
uohaI provision protecting tho indl.
TdnaI II was tho rock upon which the
coh'Hhiion against this tax was based.
Mr. E1nunds referred In ironical terms
70 Ihose who might treat tho constitu.
"ohal doien7es OF tho individual rs nn
enactment OF body OF respectable gem
t'c"!aii Who had disappeared from tho
."ge n' The earth. Eo also created
o'n"' ny an.ccsting :hat it might no
;;n'EC,,eatIne 10 know how many OF those
!" I'nS'ois Who voted for this tax OK.
rey,el TO pay part OF it.
,, .nf' Edmunda read froms.he constitu.
.;on 10 10 tho protection OF private
m.H''' These provisions, he said. wore
,t' M'e' ana yet 1t seemed necessary In
'"e'o '"ys with auch legislation hctorp
w !" 'rcal! thcso constitutional hull
%;Mks aga!nBt al invasion OF private
ti'1u"' IN a question OF this gravity
Nv WOULD lcol disposed to aak tho court
%o' ""'y 10 purauo proccdonts and III
t t"o,n 10 this subject matter, but to 20
o"cN 'nd rule upon tho entire snbjcct,
~, '"' 10 5u0tGining private rights,
NV %"r's tyranny of history was that
G%",c' came IN tho guiso OF q ,nx. lio
mF' 7p'He oi tho action OF Congrosa In
s"'naVoring TO take away from tho
courts tho right to appeal for protection,
AZ ""S lI'n case in tho income tax lnw.
toLLETolS NOT LEGITIMATE OFFICERS.
'ie uid not think tho ,imo had como
"NcN thcro should bo no longer m up.
'%"' 10 l'lc courts from tho nc,a OF Con.
Gres'. u would DO bcyond tho iunc.
non OF tho CongrH,s 10 pass m act that
"nu.'l blf'h ITO courts OF their rights
,''' 'hls was lu'tn1 true ns tho rights Of
S"c Gourls' spoHEiug OF tho income tnx
.'W no r'iorrod 10 n provision thnt tho
,I5F"ycr was required to mako his re.
u'rna 10 deputy colIcctory. n, soid Nm