New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-13
INCOME TAN ARGUMENTS.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLNEY AND JAMES
c. CARTER UPHOLD THE LAW.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION.
Washington March l2.-The announcement that
Attorney General Oney James c. Carter ana Joseph
H. Choate would address the Supreme Court on
the Income Tax law attracted an attendance al
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 a number Of attorneys and members OF Con-
gress who have not previously attended Among
them were Senator Chandler Of New-liampshire;
Senator Lindsay, OF Kentucky ana eX-Soilclpor-
General John Goode. of Virginia
There was little delay in entering upon the argn-
ment, the only preceding incident being the intro
duc,ion TO the court OF W. II. H. Hart. a coored
man. as a candidate for practitioner at the bar by
ex-senator Edmunds. Before Attorney General
Olney who was the first speaker. began his arsu-
ment. Chief Justice Fuller notified him that he
might proceed without regard 20 any limitation
OF time. as the period for argument had been eN-
tended by the court.
Mr. Olney, the part OF the United States TOOK
up the Constitutional questions which the seVerai
plaintiffs alleged TO be involved in the cases pre-
sented. Many Of the objections raised seemed 10
him to be simply RECONSIDERATION pro lorna
and by way OF precauton. No time ne 'housh''
need be extended in discussing the averments that
the Income Tax Jaw was an Invasion OF vested
rights and took property without due process OF ia"
These propositions were generaIltes, ana IL uere
was anything in them. 1t was because they compre-
profitable discussion Suppose it TO be true that the
Income Tax law undertook TO ascertain the Income
Of citizens by methods which were not only us
agreeable. but were heterogeneous of personal rights
The consequence would be not that the law was
void but that the hotly denounced incu!sitorial
methods could not be resorted 10. Similar con-
siderations would apply to the objection that the
law was TO be pronounced void because taxing the
agencies and instrumen taties of the governments
Of the several States It had not yet been definitely
ndjudca ted, and 1t by no means TO be admitted
that the income OF State and municipal securities
was not taxable by the United States when assessed
as part Of the total income of the owners under a
law assessing income generally. and not DISCRIMINATE
ing between such securities and others OF ike chai
acter But suppose the contrary. The result "oua
be not to find that the law was bad IN to'o out
that 1t was bad only as the income OF state ana
municipal securities The Attorhey-Dehera' 'o"-
tinued:
II am right in these observations the consti'u
tfonal contention OF the plaintiffs SINNERS DOWN 10
two points One Is that an income tax Is urecs
tax and must be imposed according 70 the RUE OF
apportionment and the other Is basea upon ' re
uniformity / do not stop discuss the question
what the constitutional rule Of appor;ionmen Is
do not think ought delay the court for any con-
siderable time whether an income tax Is orecI ol
indirect Whether an r, tax IS wna QUESTION es
Completely concluded by repeated adjudicatons as
the meaning of the Constitution unless Ave concur
ring judgments Of this court have all oeeh erro-
The Attorney General denied that any land tax
uas aimed at or attempted by the statute-there
was no lien on land for payment. The whole scope
and tenor Of the statute showed the contemplated
subject OF taxation to be personal property ana
nothing else
Discussing the meaning Of the word uniform
as applied to the collection Of imposs. excuses etc.
he declared that the word had territorial appl!ca-
.ion and no other. "A Federal tax. he said,
(which is not poll tax nor tax on Iand must De
the same in all parts of the country 1t cannot be
one thing in Maine and another thing in fIorida
The law providing for such tax must be Ike
bankruptcy law naturalization law 1t must
have the operation everywhere WhoHS IRE
spective of State lines"
The power TO was for practical use. ana was
necessarily to be adapted to the practical CONDITIONS
of human fe These we're never the same for any
two persons and applied 10 any community now
ever small were infinitely diversified. Nothing was
more evident had been ofener declared by courts
and tlrls,s than that absolute equality OF taxation
was impossible No system had been or could be
devised that would produce any such result No
country nor State OF this Union had ever adopted
Ia plan OF taxation that did not exempt some por-
tons Of the community from burden that was
Imposed upon others. The power to do so was I'M
questioned. and universally exercised. 1t was
quite beside the Issue to argue in this any other
case that Congress had mistaken what public policy
required. On that point Congress was the sole and
final authority, and its decision. once made con-
trolled every other department of the Government
No exemption made by the statute in favor OF
a class that was not based on some obvious line Of
public policy-and, the class being established, one
uniform rue was applicable 10 its members. 1t Is
manifest that In this distinction between people with
incomes over $4,000 and those with incomes under
that amount Congress was proceeding upon definite
views Of public policy, and was aiming at accom-
pshing a great public object. 1t was seeking 10
adjust load of taxation the shoulders of the
community in the manner that would make II most
easily and most lightly felt. So with business
corporations. Their net incomes were taxed at the
standard rate OF per cent. but undiminshed by
the standard deduction of 5000. The result might
be that a man In business member of a corpora
ton was taxable at a little higher rate than man
in the same business by himself. co-part
tner. 1t common knowledge that poratons
are 30 successful agency for the conduct Of
business and the accumulation Of wealth that
large section Of the community viewed them with
Intense d!sfavor. When. therefore. this income tax
law made a special class OF business corporations
and taxed their incomes at a higher rate than that
applied to the incomes OF persons not incorporated
It but recognized existing social facts and condi-
lions which II would be folly to ignore
The Court listened to the Attorney General with
simulated interest. and did not interrupt his ad-
dress AS he was sitting down. however. Mr. JUS
tice Gray inquired II he had opinion of the dec
aaraton that income is excise. duty
Import
The Attorney-General-I do not think /; necessary
TO decide that question.
Justice Gray-You believe II may be a tax and yet
not direct tax?
Mr.. Olney-Yes
The Acknowledgement spoke not quite an hour and
was followed by James c. Carter. who was the last
speaker IN the argument to support the tax He
stated In the outset that he appeared for the Con-
tinental Trust Company. which had instructed him
IN adj and he Of the law
That was admitted In the demurrer TO the COM
plant OF Mr.. Hyde. it's stakeholder. and admit
ted outside tho demurrer.
This corporation. said Mr. Carter. OF
those wealthy concerns which might be supposed TO
be adversely affected by the operation of the law.
But he glad to believe and TO be able TO believe
that there were some wealthy men who were ready
md 4ho