The sun., 1895-02-15
INCOME TAX LAW.
Etc Constitutionaiity Attached by Mr.. Ed"
munds In the Court OF Appeals.

| WASHINGTON, Feb. l4.-In the United States
Court OF Appeals for the District Of Columbia
| today argument was heard in tho case involv-
| ing the uonsttutonalty of the income tax
| provision Of thcncw Tariff law The case is that
| OF John q. Moore against Joseph S. Miller,
| Commissioner of Internal Revenue, an nppli-
! cation for nn injunction TO prevent him from
collecting the tax. Judge Hngner, In the Dis
trlct Circuit Court, decided the case In favor Of
the Government, and IL comes before the higher
court on appeal.
Ex-senator George f. Edmunds OF Vermont
appeared for Mr. Moore. and Edward c. Whit
ney, Assistant Attorney enernl, for the Gov
eminent. The assignment OF errors on which
the appeal was taken was briefly as follows:
The court below erred in holding the act to bo
constitutional; IN holding that the portion OF
the act taxing incomes above $4,000 and cx-
emptng those less 70 constitutional; In holding
that II Is lawful TO tax the income derived from
his business in addition TO taxing the same In
come, received as dividend, as part of the
chargcable property of corporation In holding
that the taS was not direct and hence in viola
thong of the Constitution.
Mr. Edmuuds opened the cnse for the npel-
liant by n brief statement of the contentious
and then. in a short argument touched on all
the points brought out in the assignment OF err
rors. The direct tax character of the proposed
assessment was vigorously denounced as a pal
paDle CVll anu manlftStly VOID, because not APP
portOned according to population. Especially
evident was tho direct tax feature, said MIR. Ed
munds In the case of incomes derived from
rents or other gains from real estate, whether
private or corporate. II was naniiestly class
legislation, lie asserted; there was no uni
formty i'll the measure. The proposed tax fixed
~ distinction between two classes which was ur-
Ditrary and unjust. 1t Congress could impose Il
tax Ot two per cent on incomes over $4,000. why
had 1t not the power to turn and tax incomes
under that amount And who. asked Mr. Ed
mGnds, would endure for one minute such base
violation Of our Country's CONSTITUTIONS And
court.
Turning 10 that section OF the act providing
that no action in equity shall he brought to test
the validity OF the act, Mr.. Edmunds attacked
II vigorously, disclaiiIing the power of Congress
to pass such an act. Mr. EdInunds contended
thai the tax must be uniform throughout the
nited states. The exercise of the constitu-
tional power to tax required that all shall be
treated alike Could it be reasonably contcnded.
be passed providing that all persons who import
goods In less quantities than 100000 shall be
exempt from duties thereon and all larger i'm
pOrtpts taxed on their excess of that amount
a rate must be fixed that would apply to all
alike.
Mr.. Whitney. in replying for the Government
argued on the basis OF the brief used In the
lower court, complete synopsis of which was
given in these dispatches at the time. He con-
that the courts had no power to interfere in the
matter prior to its collection, and that ample
redress could be had by persons taxed If they |
were entitled to recover After a brief reioin- |
der by Mr.. Edmunds the Court took the case
under advisement.