New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-05
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
THE ODIOUS INCOME TAX LAW.
THE FEDERAL INCOME TAN A Treatise Ire nostf

the spirit of the Constitution, so unfen"'lduc OF
so vicious In its class distinctions. The Federal in
come tax proposed by Mr. Dallas, Secretary Of the
/ Treasury in 1871. never adopted. because the
then pending having come to an END before
: its enactment consummated it was considered
by Congress that the unusual emergency justifying
such eXpedient had passed with the declaration
Of peace Not until tine War Of the Rebellion when
| all other available resources Of the Nation were
fast being exhausted In supplying the armies in the
field, 1t that attempt was made to supple
mcnt the Federal revenues by assessment upon
personal incomes But all these statutes. Including
! those passed between 1865 and 1870, purely
measures. As soon as II became apparent that the
| burden Of the enormous debt could be carried
/ in another and normal way these laws
repealed; and since the repeal Of the last of them.
in July. 1870 successful attempt has been made
! 10 place another Federal income tax law the
statute books until August last.
Moreover none Of these statutes in force between
1861 and 1871 embodied the really odious features
/ the law Of 1894 There attempt in the for
mer laws to effect class legislation by combining the
! payment Of the tax to the rich; nor certain
/ sections Of the country made to pay substantially
the whole tax for the benefit OF the entire Union.
II is true that incomes below certain specified sums
not subject to the tax. but these exempted IN
comes fixed by the respective statutes at $500
$50 and $500 that all except the poorest, In all
portions Of the country. contributed their pro
! share the National revenues derived from this
source. And even this limitation appears to have
! been made. not to create class distinctions TO
make portion OF the community certain
! lions Of the country pay taxes for tho rest but
| chiefly because experience had taught the legis
lators. they believed that tho expense OF collect
Ing a upon the smallest in ones is greater than
the result warrants If IT is not generally i'm
practicable
But no such justification or excuse has been
made. even 10y its most conscientious advocates for
the law Of lS9 which only taxes individuals whose
incomes exceed $1,000 Even If it had been more
or less cand.d.y admitted. every would have
| known that exemption for 50 large a sum meant
an attrmp; t. impose upon the wcll-to-lo and the
I prosperous portions of tho country only their
pro rata share Of public burdens bu also the share
" their Joss thrifty noghb1rs and fc.,ow-citlzens
~ vii Is Mr.. Foster points ont in his chapter
on tn" constitutional objections to the statute. II
/ may well be contendcl that the Xempuon Of per
sons with income of less tnan si.G) is unrea-
/ sonah'" - make the imposition upon the rest
not tax. but conf~cnti,n anI. c1nsequ. lty.
constitutional the taking Of he taxpayers prop
| crtv w'thput due process - law. The other con
/ stu'onal objections have been thoroughly dis
clssal In tn recent argument before the United
/ States supreme court. BIt quite aside from the
'echn-E grounds AID from til. legal precel,n,s
upon which he decision II the Court rest the
| mass - the people Will remain satisfied that in
many - l's essential features 'he Law Is radically
/ unjust AMI .ueqI'ahla
: treatise upon the be Of any value the
present year mus; DE- brought from the presses with
comparatively lt'le time or preparation. 81 that
| IL might he IN tha hands ~ those FOR whose use
| II vas designed before the time arrived FOR hand
Ing u returns - The collectors FIR the accomplish
I mon. ~ this task by their Joint labors Messrs
/ F.st,r AMI Abbot were peculiarly well ntted-Mr
B 80 i.. ht. .-..,... ,,,.a.,, -, , 80
/ Constitutional lazy. anI Mr.. Abbo, by ht' re-
solrchc- respecting various forms ~ governmental
/ taxation tn" Two chapters which the authors have
written. each independent of tho other and each
/ most familiar are no, only the most valuable. but
The most Interesting plrfs ~ the work In ch,n,er
If Mr. Foster discusses univ tho cor,,,,u,,orol
'''- 'N,', ''''y ,"r 'o'''''u,I'na'
( objections to the statute, and shows the history
u Applications over previous Income Tax laws.
o,.r,,r ,,,,, ~. ,,r,,,,y =, ,ho v,,ors c,ns,,,u.
N.nnl objections prc'eni"i - The law. bu, the dif-
n.,,,,. ,,i.t ,btr, ,r. ..,,., ,boIr i,.t,,
~ the force - some x those objections ia mani
| fost
/
.'''' ''N MI roster '''s ''''N pa'K upon t"e
| ,t, o., ..f,. H.. ,,x. 100. ,,,,,,.o, r ,,rI
'a>-s nni tlxos on hnI But the question 81 uni
N.rfui'v - taxation require, bv the Constitution
/ causes MN more '"'''I''y' ann comes very "'',
e.. me i'."t '' Hp'"'unE MS dr'.'''l Intention Oh
l., ,,., ,. c..s,.,,,.,,,.,i,.,. ~, ,, ,,, Aft.r
citing instances I'm which the courts have declared
| invalid stltu'cs apparently NO. moro obnoxious u
! ia, constitutional restriction Nj Foster SAYS:
II is true thlf the courts recognize the validity 81
som" exemptions from TAXATION. fropsry "hltn
..,,,,,'. a. "' ~, -, III u ""S rl,',io,s ar
/ ctArtibl. coruor,iion- may he exempted from
ttNttln. - persons who's" means are nsuflci"ni
..'' IT." l' 'lt'.l ne 10 'll u -,
/ in4y v,i l. cliIm,i however that the limit OF
! ms 'N'miIou although IhtE"N Wlthn me Ilscrr-
,l..i,,,+ il,, 49,, ,,,,g,r,,, ,r,r t,, bc a.
t,irail, but ,u 4prroN lmation them is possible
an any PUN H'I1, 'ur' rom INC tt." W.. ''ir1
/ ',,. -. ,,.,,,r a., nan, , siueia iuliy,lI,l
sale an, Tor that purpose the richest man In the
/ n'"i St1i'< "r som" otn"f, IN either case tne
''',, "'t w., h1t "'nts,ation AMI con,.-
queutly invalid j. there any difference IN principle
between SUCH T. i1W ana or" "3i,n ShoIlI rN'mpi