Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-05-09
CHOATE CONTINUES.
Hs Concludes Ills Argument AGAINST
InCome-TaX Law.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ANSWERED..
III. PROPOSITIONS More Particularly
Receive the New Workers. Atten.
.,c.-I.auxhter Excited-The Court
Adjourns Until Monday, May 10th.

WASHINGTON, May s.-Almost imme-
diately upon the assembling OF the SUI
nrerre Court Of the United States at noon
TO-DAY the chamber being filled with
snectators drawn there by the announce
ment that he was to speak, Mr.. Joseph
II. Choate resumed the closing argument
in the income-tax cases.
There remained to Mr.. Choate two hours
OF the five allotted for the presentation
of his side Of the case, and he entered
unon his task In excellent form for the
work. He had Just begun when the court
rose Yesterday to speak Of the claim by
himself and associates as TO what had been
decided by the court In Its judgment
OF April sth upon the subject of the tax
on rents.
Prior to the resumption OF proceedings
Mr.. Samuel Sheilabarger, OF counsel for
John q. Moore, In his suit for an injunc-
tion against rnal-Revenue-C
sIoner Miller, In the District courts, ask
cd leave to- make brief oral argument
ar tho close of Mr.. Choate's remarks. TO
no largely devoted to the question of uni
formity. but the Chief Justice stated that
II would be impossible to grant the appi-
! cation at this time
Mr.. Choate. In opening, said that he
| would not proceed on the line laid down
| Yesterday, but would devote himself to
the consideration OF certain questions
, asked yesterday by the A'torhey-ueh
| in his address.
The Acknowledgement had contended,
among other things, that II the construc-
| ton of the Constitution set up by the
contestants of the tax were maintained,
| II would seriously impair the resources
and power of the government In times
| of emergency.
FACTS AND FIGURES.
Figures will not lie," it had been said.
| remarked Mr.. Choate, but II was equally
| well known that they would convey en-
| t,relv different meanings according as
I thev might be handled. Upon that point,
| said Mr.. Choate. their brief filed IN the
| case presented some statements and fig
| ures which demonstrated the unsound-
! ness of the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS claim.
1.-THE rights of citizens" that document
| stated. cannot be affected by exaggera-
| ton of the importance to the government
| OF the questions now involved. The only
| previous income-tax known in the coun-
| try's history arose from the necessities
| of the civil war. Up to the close or ls5t
! II Is computed that the government had
expended for war purposes more than 81
| 600 600 900. yet only $40 came from
| this income-tax. This shows how insig-
| nificant a part that tax played In sup
| plying the country's requirements at the
/ time Of its greatest necessity.
what saved the country was Its high
/ financial credit and the patriotic attach
/ ment of its citizens 10 the system Oh
| government guaranteed by its Constitu-
! ton. Those resources, it Is earnestly sub
| mitted. will be most surely preserved by
| faithful administration OF its fundamen-
| tai law. not BY efforts TO fritter away the
| bulwarks of private rights and private
| property. which were established thereby
J as conditions Of the country's existence.
PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Mr.. Choate addressed himself directly
| TO the discussion of the matters left in
! dispute by the decision of the court in
the light OF the declarations in that decis-
F, ion. The first related 10 the tax on per
sonal property, and his contention was
that the corpus Of personal property was
! entitled to the same protection as rea
! estate and that tax on the income de-
! rived therefrom was a direct tax as
much as tax on rents. And in this
position he was aided by the frank avow.
al OF the Attorney-General that II was
logically So
Mr.. Choate then went into the history
of the question. and quoted from the
/. April decision of the court to sustain his
contention that personal property was
subject only to a direct tax, levied and
collected by the rule of apportionment.
STARE DECIsIs.
Turning then TO the decisions of the
h. 1oo ri
! OF stare decisis To observe this doctrine
] without modification. ne said. would raise
/ the judiciary above the concurrent branch
! OF the government, the legislative, for
/ thereby the court would fail to enforce a
/ rule in respect to itself that IL enforced
| against the Legislature.
Justice Brown: But suppose, Mr..
| Choate. that Congress has acted for one
| hundred years upon the decisions OF this
! court, is not that a case for the observ-
ance OF the doctrine of stare decisis?
| Mr.. Choate: | think not and I propose,
| a little later, TO show that Congress has
acted wrongly in respect 10 those decis-
ions and without full knowledge Of their
| effect.
| THE SUGGESTED REFUND.
! Touching upon the suggestion OF coun-
| sci that IL the present income-tax be
! overthrow a demand might be made for
! refund OF the income-tax of war-timeS.
Mr.. Choate asked what kind of political
! morality was involved in the suggestion
| of the Attorney-G.neral that because the
government had in the past illegally col
lected taxes 1t must be permitted to go on
In the future illegally collecting other
taxes.
| But your honors need have no fear
| on that score The former income-tax was
| paid willingly. and If any OF them or their
| descendants should demand its return
| they would be the subjects OF general
shame and general contempt And. fur
| Their, there is nothing in the history OF
attitude of the government to warrant
the belief that II all who had paid the
| tax should altogether demand its return
| they would ever get a dollar OF IT back.
No. that suggestion can be safely dis
| missed
| Mr.. Choate turned 10 the points made
| with respect to lack OF uniformity, and
Of illegal and unjust exceptions.
THE 1900 EXEMPTION.
| The exception of incomes Of $1,000 and
| less from the operation OF the law, Mr.
| Choate said, was even less defensible OF
| excusable than that in relation to mutual
insurance companies. It's object was to
make the law applicable only 10 very
small proportion of the people, largely
residing In a few OF the States-the ole
seaboard States. who gave up so much
In the compromise that resulted In the
adoption Of the Constitution.
Mr.. Choate said there remained ther
but the one other question to be con
sidered-Did the unconstitutional features
| OF the law already SO declared by the
court, invaldate the rest Of the law?
I'VE say that 1t does; that this manglec
and mutilated corpse has been too Ions
unburied. Too long has II shocked the
sensbilities of the people OF the United
| States"
The court had already taken out Of III
| operation the incomes derived from rea
estate and State and municipal bonds
when II had, as he believed 1t would. In
! response to the prayer Of the com
F, plainants taken away the income from
personal property. what will be lefty
| bo oskaI .yya will ha leff-tho hone