Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-03-12
TIRE INCOME TAX IN COURT.
ARGUMENT OF WHITNEY ron THE
GOVERNMENT.
Dividends From Foreign Corpora
tions Are Incomes-rhe Governor
of Arixona-cohdition of the Treas
ury-GeneraI Washington News.


munds and other distinguished counsel
in the case occupied seats at the desk
reserved for attorneys. The courtroom
was crowded. Mr.. McAiillin. Mr.. Spring.
er and several other members OF con-
gress who had taken part In the en-
actment of the income tax, were among
Inc listeners.
Mr. whitney addressed himself to the
question of uniformity in taxation In
answer to the charges that the Income
tax Violated the principles OF Uniform
ity. He contended that the limit OF
$1,000 fixed by the law was not class
legislation. II a subsequent congress
had sought to amend the law by includ-
ing those not previously exempted by
the $1,000 limit. this amount would no
doubt be class legislation. as II would
apply to a distinct class.
Mr. whitney reviewed prior Occasions
In Insurance and other cases, showing
that the Interpretation OF this court ON
class legislation would not apply to IN
come tax. Concerning the exemptions
allowed to certain corporations, the as
Ristant attorney general said 1t was
most surprising that this was set up as
a ground for inyalidating the tax. He
read from numerous federal tax laws.
showing repeated exemptions in the
cases OF art societies and many other
corporations In the District Of Column
bia, but building and loan associations
and savings companies were frequently
exempted by law, us they We're made
M by a poor class OF people, to whom
the law gave special consideration.
During the war the law makers even
exempted the Mutual Insurance com
pany from the operation Of general
tpx Ia 10 aufh TINT
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 That
this income came in part from land
was merely an Incident. The income
tax is in no sense land tax. II is not
un gross income. Mr.. Whitney took up
the claim that the federal government
can not lend municipal and local se-
ourities held by individuals, as, for in
stance, bonds Issued by New York city,
lie said 1t had been decided In the c1 SO
OF BOnaparte against the state Of Mary
land that a state could tax bonds Of
the city or state OF New York. Il the
state could exercise tkls power, why
could not the federal government do the
same.
Mir. whitney concluded at 1880 p m.
He was followed by Mr., Edmunds,
counsel against the tax. He spoke
quietly and in n conversational tone,
much as he did when leading figure
OF the senate He stated the contention
| OF his client against an Invasion Of his
rights aud an inspection Of his private
books and papers. IL there was n con-
sttutional provision protecting the in
| divldual 1t was the rock upon which the
| contention against this tax was based.
| Mr. Edmunds read from the constitu-
| ton as to the protection OF private
| rights, These provisions, he said, were
tried. and yet 1t seemed necessary In
/ these days with such legislation be-
fore us TO recall these constitutional
| bulwarka against an invasion OF pri-
| Vatc rights In question of this gray
ity he would feel disposed to ask the
court not only to pursue presidents and
1T them TO this subject matter, but to
go back and rule upon the entire sub
Jects 80 vital TO sustaining private
rights, The worst tyranny OF history
was that which came In the guise of d
tax. He first spoke OF the action OF
congress In eudenVoring to take away
from the courts the rights to appeal fol
protection, rs was the case in the in
come tax law.
He did not think the time had CONT
whom there should no longer be an ap
| pcul to tho courts from tho acts Of CON
srcss. IL would be beyond tho functior
of the congress To PASS nm act whioi
would strIp the courta of their rights
and this was lust as true as To- IN,
rights of the citizens as to those Of In,
courts. SpenlInr of The income IAN law
he referred 10 the provision that In
tax payers were required to make theI
returns to deputy collectors, He sal
the IDENTITIES we're not recnpni1ed a
legitimate oflcers under tho constItu
ton. | do not. however. he aid. mon
to dwell on that. but merely 10 refe
to II in passing as one OF tho vice
which bloomed in the garden OF the las
congress-. He criticised mnny othe
features OF the law providing for IN
collection of tax, and pointed ont That
left no room for resort or appeal 10 m
courts. but LETT to the revenue officer
the adjustment. who. he said. were nc
only the final Judges, but the inoulsit
ors as well.
ut is true" he said, that these re
turns are to be regarded az conflden
tial. but how are we to know ina
they VIII alfays be treated 30? lis
, not possible that they may handled
, for Instance, like the condolences .
5 IN United States senator"
Mr.. lsdmunds reviewed the case
heretofore decided which have been n
ferred to In the argument and ana
E yzed the points involved at length. II
was referring TO the Hilton case. In