The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-03-13
DEFENDING THE INCOME TAX
AttOrney-General 0lnsy's Argument Be-
fore the Supreme Court,
THE CONSTITUTION NOT VIOLATED.
With Regard to Uniformity He Declares
the Judicial Department Cannot Usurp
the Powers OF the Legislative.


Hon. James c. Carter and Hon. Joseph
H. Choate, OF New York, would address
the Supreme Court upon the income tax
law attracted an attendance upon the
session Of the Supreme Court of the
United States to-day that far exceeded
the capacity Of the accommodations Of
the chamber Within the rail sat num-
Der OF the attorneys and members of
Congress who have not previously at
tended upon the case. Among them were
Senator Chandler, Of New Hampshire;
Senator Lindsay, of Kentucky, and eX-
Soicitor-General John Goode, Of Nir-
gina.
Before Attorney. General Olney, who
was the first. entered upon his argument,
Chief Justice Fuller notified him that he
might proceed without regard to any linn
.tation of time, as the period for argu-
ment had been extended by the court.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
The Attorney General devoted his ar
gument on the part OF the United states
TO the constitutional question which the
several plaintiffs alleged TO be involved
i'm the cases presented. Many of the OBJ
iections raised seemed TO him TO be sim
y
way Of precautiOn. These propositions
were generalities, and If there was any
thing in them # was because they com
pretended others ' Mich were the only
real subjects of profitable discussion.
Suppose IL 10 be true that the income tax
law undertook to ascertain the incomes OF
citizens by methods which were not only
disagreeablc. but were infringcments OF
personal rights; the consequences Would
be, not that he law was void, but tnat
the hotly denounced inquisltorial methods
could not be resOrtcd to. Similar consld-
orations would apply to the objection that
the law was to be pronounced void be-
cause taxing the agencies and instrument
talties of the governments of the several
States IT had not yet been definitely ad-
Indicated. and IT, is by no means TO be ad-
mittcd that the income Of State and mu-
nicpal securities was rot taxable by the
United states when assessed as part OF
the total income Of the owners, under
Jaw assessing income generally, ana not
discriminating between such securities
and others of ike character But suppose
the contrary. The result would be not TO
find that the law was bad in toto, but That
IL was bad only as 10 the income OF
state and municipal securities.
TWO CONVENTIONS.
The AttorncyGeucral continued.
IF / ana right in these observations,
tho constitutional contentious Of the
Plaintiffs simmer down TO two points
one is that the income tax is direct
tax, ana must be imposed according 10
the rule of apportionment, and the other
is based upon tne alleged Violation oI
the Constitution with regard TO uniiormi-
ty. | do not stop TO discuss the ques-
ten what the constitutional rule of APP
a.. ,. IL. 4fYtr 1 ~
10 delay the court for any considerable
time with the question whether an in
come TAX is direct or indirect Whether an
income tax is what the Constitution de-
scribes as a direct" tax is a question
as completely concluded by repeated adj
publications as any question can be. IL
IS not a direct tax within the meaning
of the Constitution. unless five concur
ring judgments of this court shall have
been erroneous"
The Attorney General denied that any
land tax was aimed Al or attempted by
the statute-there was no lien OH land
for payment. The whole scope and tenor
Of the statutes showed The contemplated
subject of taxation to be personal prop
erty and nothing else.
UNIFORM DEFINED.
Discussing the meaning of the word
uniform" as applied to the collection
of imposts, cXcises, etc, he declared that
the word had territorial application. and
no other. "a Federal tax" he said,
(which is not a poll tax nor tax on
land, must be the same i'm all parts of
the country. 1t cannot be one thing I'm
Maine and another thing in Florida. The
law providing for such tax must be
like bankruptcy law, or naturalization
law. 1t must have the same operation
for everywhere wholly irrespective OF
State lines"
che power to tax was for practical
uses and was nece ssarily to ne adopted
20 the practical conditions of human life
These were never the same for any two
persons and as applied TO any oummunity,
however small. were infniteslm1lly d.
Versified Nothing was more evident or
had been oftener declared by courts and
jurists than that absolute equality Of tax
alton was impossible No system had
been or could be devised that would pro-
duce such a result.
No country or State of this Union had
ever adopted plan of taxation that
did rot exempt some portions of the COM
munity from burden that was impos-
ed upon others. The power 10 40 so
was unquestioned and was universally
exercised.
CONGRESS THE SOLE AUTHORITY.
"
IN this or any other case that Congress
had mistaken what public policy requir-
cd. on that point Congress was the
sole and final authority. and its decison
once made controlled every other depart
ment Of the Government. No exemption
was made by the statute in favor of a
class that was not based on some obvious
line of public policy, and. the class be-
ing established, one uniform rule was
applicable TO its members. IL was mani
fest that in this distinction between peo-
pie with incomes over $1,000 and those
with incomes under that amount Congress
was proceeding upon definite views of
public policy, and was aiming at accom-
plishing a great public object. 1t was
seeking to adjust the load of taxation TO
the shoulders of the community I'm the
manner that would make IL most easily
borne and most lightly felt. So with busi-
ness corporations. Their net incomes
were taxed at the standard rate OF
per cent, but undimlnished by the stand
ard deduction of $1,000. The result might
be that a man I'm business as a member
Of corporation was taxable at little
higher rate than a man In the same
business by himself or as co-partner.
1t was common knowledge that corpo-
rations were so successful an agency for
the conduct of business and the accunu-
lations of ealth that large section or
the community viewed them with in
tense disfayor. When, therefore, this in
come tax law made special class OF
bLsines corporations and taxed their III
comes at higher rate than that applied
to the incomes of persons not incorpora-
ted IL but recognized existing social facts
and conditions which II would De iolly