The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-03-12
THE INCOME TAX LAW
Ex-senator Edmunds Says it Is
Unconstitutional.
AND TENDS TO REvoLuTlon.
N Appeal tn the supreme Cour. to
Preserve the Charter or our Lib
critics From Violation.

rey General 0sney. ex-senator Edfnunax
and many other distinguished counsel la
fAe case cccupsef seats At the desk re-
served for atforSess. The court room
vas crowded. Mr.. Mcmillan. Mr. Spring
sY and seEerai other msnssers OF congress
who had taken part In the enactment Of
ire income tax law. were among those
present. Mr. Whitney addressed hiuseig
10 The question OF uniformity In taxa
fton. In answer to the charges that the
Income tax violated the princfple OF uni-
ferraity. He contended that the limit OF
4eB fixed by the law was not class icgfA-
8 hilton. IL a subsequent congress had
scsgBt TO amend the law by Including
those not previously exempted by the
A9G limit. this amendment would no
tcab. be class legislation. az ~ would
apply TO distinct class. Mr. Whitney
reviewed prior decisions In insurance and
ether cases. showing that the interpre-
tation OF this eourr on class legislation
would not apply to the income tax. Con-
esrnsng tbs exemptions allowed 10 GER
tain corporations. the assistant attorney
general said Il was most surprising that
this was set up as q ground for invalid
atiHg the tax, He read from numerous
Federal tax laws showing repeated ex-
emptions In cases OF art soeieties and
many other corporations
The court had sustained the tax ex-
smption of manufacturing corporations In
the District Of Columbia. Building and
: loan associations and savings companies
were frequently exempted by law and
given special consideration. During the
war the lawmakers even exempted the
mutual insurance companies from .the OPP
eratIoHs OF the general tax law
Mr. Whitney said that the supreme
court had already overruled the conten-
ton that the taxation of land values
and rentals as made by the income tax
was Invalid. The state taxes were against
the land and not against the individual.
but the income tax was not against the
land. but merely against the total income
OF the Individual As this income came
In part from land. IL was merely an Incl
dent The income tax is In no sense
land, tax. 1t h not on the gross income
from land and other sources. but on the
Let income.
Mr. whitney took up the claim tina, the
federal government cannot tax municipal
and local securities held BY individuals
as. for instance. bonds issued by New
York city. lie said II had been decided In
the case OF Bonaparte against the state
OF Maryland that a state could tax the
bonds of the city or state Of New York
IL the state could exercise this power.
why could not tho federal government do
tho same2
Mr.. Whitney concluded at f:3o and was
followed by MIR. Esimunds. counsel against
the tax lie spoke quietly and In a con-
yersatIonai tone. much as he did when a
leading ngura OF the senate He stated
the contention OF his client against the
Invasion OF his rights aud an Inspection
Of his private books and papers. IL there
was constitutional provision protecting
The individual. II was the rock upon which
the contention against this tax was based.
Mr. Edmuhds read from the constitution
a TO tho protection OF private rights.
These provisions. he said. were trite. and
Ha seemed necessary IN these days,
kxx1gh asia las tan bet -.
tAs& constitutional hniwarks against an
snsasion OF private rights. In a question
n this gravity he would feel disposed to
ssk he court not only 10 pursue precc-
dsRs and follow them in this matter. but
= 80 back and rule upon the entire SUBJ
~. so vital To sustaining private rights.
Tbe worst tyranny of history was that
rhlh came In the guse of relief. He
ffst spoke OF the action OF congress In
endeayorng to take away from the courts
the right to appeal for protection. as was
the case In the income law. He did not
think the time had como when there
should be no longer an appeal 90 the
courts from the acts of congress-. 1t
Was beyond the function of congress 10
pass an act that would strip the courts
Of their rights and this was just as true
as 10 the rights Of the citizen as TO the
courts
Speaking OF the Income tax Law, he re-
ferred 10 the provision that the taxpayer
was required 10 make hts returns. To dep
atp collectors lie said the deputy was
not recognized as n legitimate officer I'M
der the constitution. II do not. however"
he said mean 70 dwell on that. but
merely refer TO II In passing as one OF the
points OF the vices which hlnomed In the
garden OF the last congress-. He criti-
cised many other features OF the law pro-
slatng for the collection of the taxes.
pointed out that Il left no room for re-
sort or appeal to the courts. but left the
adjustment 20 the revenue officers. who.
be said were not only the final Judges,
but the lnquisitors as well.
1T Is true" ne said. that these re-
turns are TO ba regarded as confidential.
but how are u know that they viii
always he treated SO? IL IL not possible
that they may always BE- he so treated Is
IL is not possible that they may be handled
for Instance like the condolences OF the
United States senates
Mr. Eimunds then reviewed the case
heretofore decided which has been re-
ferrea 10 In theprevious argument. anu
discussed the points involved AT length.
He was referring 10 the Hilton case. IN
volving the tax on carriages. when Chtef
Justice Fuller called his attention to the
fact that Mr.. Hilton had an unnsnai
number Of carrlages-s5. as ne reneh-
herSss
munds asserted. hal he possessed them
as many persons rs-ssess virtue ana
grace
tie asked the court 10 override its
former decision in the income tax, as
gtyen in the Springer case. Let us,
he said. come back 10 the true rule CT
the constitution We are 10 expect grad
val and indefinite similar departures from
the lire marked out by the constitution.
AMI We may depart further and furtner
from Il until at last. like the mariner
after & storm. or the traveller IN the
wilderness after the stars again come our,
We are compelled 20 readjusi our course
In the new ltsht THAI Is given,
He argued that the Fast congress haa
overstepneSi the limits OF the consutn-
ton IN imposing this tax. because ne
said Il was short Of naney. He argued
THAI under the Lave 9 per cent. OF the TAX
would be paid 10y per cent OF the TAX
able voters.
1T becomes" said Mr.. Eamunds. an
Interesting subject OF speculation as 10
how lC0c the government can last under
system which allows those who pay
nothing Ia tax their fellow citizens one
evil step viii lead 80 another. as one vice
follows another. until by and by We VII!
Rave revolution. then anarchy. then
Nrsnt 10 rule us as the revolving changes
80 around -
Justice Harlan asked Mr. Eimands u
BE had formulated definition of the dif-
ference between direct and an indir.et
tax ard he replied that ne had. He there
snea proceeded TO give IL. saying direct
Tax MAS a tax on any Kind 81 property