The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-04-18
INCOME TAX RETURNS.
Many Persons Have Not sent I'm Blanks
The Pronosel RohoarinC.

Washington City, April 1.-THE inter
nal revenue officials positively decline to
make public any statement in regard TO
the income tax returns. or TO answer any
question relating thereto 1t is learned
that the real caiase of this reticence is
the great number of plumbers made by
the collectors in their telegraphic reports
received yesterday and today Some of
them contained only the number OF re-
turns received last Monday while others
included all that had been received from
the beginning. including those below the
$4,000 exemption, while stll others includ-
ed returns on which no tax is payable
Who Is blamable for this state of things
is norstated, but the result is that from
what has been received no intelligent
statement can be given OF the number or
amount OF returns fled with the collect
ors. II is undoubtedly true that a large
number of persons subject to the law
have made no returns at ALL and In con-
sequence the officials see ahead az them
a vast amount of litigation aud trouble.
The attorney general today filed I'm the
United States supreme court a memo
randum for the consideration OF the jus
tees. giving the governments view on
the petition for a rehearing or the in
come tax question fled by opponents of
the law. The memorandum is as fol-
lows:
Charles Pollock. appellant. versus the
Farmers Loan and Trust Company. ct
al. Lewis Hyde. appellant. versus the
Continental Trust Company. OF the city
OF New York. ct al: on petition for re-
hearing. The United States respectfully
represents that If a reheartng Is granted
I'm the ahove-entitled cases the rehearing
should cover all Of the legal and consti-
tutional questions involved and not
merely those upon which this court is
equally divided.
Il. Whether the tax on incomes. gen
eraly inclusive OF rents and interests or
dividends from investments Of all kinds.
is or is not direct tax within the mean
ing OF the Federal constitution. is a mat
ter upon which. an original question.
the government has really never been
heard. Its position at the argument was
that the question has been settled by an
exposition of the constitution practically
contemporary with its adoption. by a sub
seQuent unbroken line OF judicial prece-
dents. by concurring and repeated action
OF all departments of the government and
by a concensus of all the text writer's
and authorities by whom the subject has
heretofore been considered.
Tho Importance 10 the government OF
the new views of its taxing powers. as an
nounccd TN the opinion OF the chief JUS
flce, can hardly be exaggerated. First,
pushed 20 their logical conclusion, they
practically exclude from direct operation
OF the power OF taxing al real estate Of
the country. and all its invested personal
property. They exclude II because II
realty and personality are taxed only by
the rules OF superintendent. the inequali-
ties resulting from such a plan or taxa
ton are so gross and fragrant as TO abso-
iutely dehar any resort 10 Il. That such
inequalities must result is practically aG-
mittei. The only suggestion in reply be-
ing that the power 20 directly tax realty
an ordinary everyday power that the
United States was expected 90 rely for
tts customary revenues upon duties. i'm
ports and excuses. and that Il was meant
70 should impose direct taxes only in ox-
traordinsry emergencies and as = sort OF
dernier resort. 10 IS submitted that
construction % the constitution, 81 such
vital importance in itself. and requiring
for its support ar ifnputation "a its franz
ers ~ specific purposes. which nothing
- che text OF the constitution has any
tendency 70 reveal, cannot ~ too care
fuily considered before being finally
adopted Second. though Of minor i'm
rovtance. ID - not irrelevant 70 point out
that X the new exposition Of the consfi-
tuition referred % Is 70 prevail. the Unlt-
"a States has under previous income TAR
iaws Colleete1 vast sums OF money which
L. every principle Of justice II ought 20
refund. and which It must be assumed.
congress wiil deem itself bound 20 make
provision for refunSing - appropriate
legislation. Respect fully submitted
RICHARD oLSEY.
Attorney General
Nashville Tenn. April lS-In an IN
teryiew 20 ~ published IA the American
tomorrow, Associate Jgssice Howell =.
jackson. OF fhs supreme court. SAYS. II
wrote = few aags since 20 TIRE chief 9us;ics
Simply expressing my willingness 70 20
20 Washington city and make a fun
bench IN case the court should desire
reAeaEsGg % the income tax case - r5As