Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-03-13
THE INCOME TAX ARGUMENTS
SOME GREAT LEGAL LIGHTS IN THE
CASE.
Attorney-Gencrai oincy's Argument.
Why shouldn't Edmunds ray Tax
ON Fee Ms Wen ns Fnrmcr on
Ills Iands-Case Not Concluded.


a..
eueu WIN argument by Attorney-Gen-
eral Olney ON behalf OF the govern
ment for tho ,,,t,a,,,, -, a.. ~.
,,,... " '0
eourt room INSIDE the bar was crowded
when the court came nj noon. and there
was M tir,e ,.ha,, ,,,, it,,,t,.a ,a,,,,,,,,
nc
OF me room was sufhcient 10 accom-
modate the audience: Mr., Olney began
b,, so,.,,,, ,b., ~. III, ,,.,.,.,. =, ~,
"
government IN the present litigation
was limited to the constitutional aues-
,t..,. 10, a.
.''''s "'''V' INC seNera' pia'h''''s "'iese
10 be involved. Whether they are
really involved he wnuld not nttempt
20 a..a..t
'i''i'e' -" eNoii'inu'io" VI '"e
piaintiifs bills and briefs and argu-
ments seemed To him 10 show tbat
man, 90 49,. NJ, .,,,..,,-. -.
'i'"'y VI the alesed opJeclohs TO the
validity OF the income tax are simply
perfunctOry In character.
"Thcy are takln, nrofor,r, hy vov
., ,,,.,.-,,,,i.-.. 80, -.
N''''l' orta USE VI tue poss'pH'tS
OF point developing In some uneN-
pected connection, and Just as a good
equity pleader be his knowledge OF the
case OF the pertinent remedies ever so
thorough, never fails to wind up with
me general prayer for other and fur
gler releI' NO time need be spent In
uIseusslns the aNernenta that the IN
come TAX rs an invasion OF vested right
VI iahes bropelly without que process
81 oe, lSN i,,,a tnese PROPOSITIONS are pure
q, tho,,, IL T.. ~ ~ 'itStv y NIlS thlnB
otbar- ybti5 80 ~, 10y Nv In ~ e1Ieliv
nrohobl" dIsc,,ssi,,, LII, Su ,,.'s 1t
10 ba tr,,a No. H. ts,,i', "l,PosN
underta,es ~ ascaTt,in M G,co,,,es
Of citizens by metbnds which are M
only dIagreeabie. bnt are infrjnge,
ments OF personal rights, The eousc-
quence is not thai the law is void but
that the hotly denounced inotiisltorial
methods cannot be- resor.ied 10 Tbe ma
considerations ppply 10 Inc obiections
that the law IS va be pronounced void
because taxing the agencies ana in.
strumentallties OF the governments OF
the several states.
II has not been definitely adjusted
and 1t is by no means to be admitted
that the income OF state and nunicipai
securities Is not tpxable by the United
States when assessed ma mart Of the
total income of the owners under a
law assessing incomes gsnernIly and
moi DISCRIMINATING bstvesn sucb so
ourlties ma ofhsrs ~ n Iilss rharacts,.
AM sunnose Tho contrary mo rrsuli ia
mi ma tho law is bsd in ,,t, h,,t
ma a. is ma nrI,. a., 10 enc ir,o,,,o az
stato a,,J ,,,,t,,letfyoI orti,ort,,'s
~ - ~, T., ~, -, ,,., d,
-, 80, 100.
~
49,, -" 20 ,,,', w
~ p Si., '',,,, GU ,ii01','e '''S
- 49, "a ~, " ,i i nv
- ~ -, a.. h,s,,i ,,,,,,, 10 oii",,,,i
ana me o'her IS BASED upon the alleged
VOCATION OF the constitution with regard
10 uniformity,
lie declared whelhrr an income TAX
Is what the constitution describes as a
direct tax Is q question as complete
ly concluded by repeated adjudications
as any question can be. II 10 not a
| direct tax within the meaning Of the
! constitution unless hve concurrlnn
| Judgments OF this court have all beer
| erroneots
Speaking on another point raised by
/ the appellant. he said no land tax is
aimed at or attempted by the statute
/ there Is no lien on land Tor payment
/ and the whole scope and tenor OF the
| stntute shows the contemplated sub
| ipct of taxation to be personal proper.
| ~ and nothing else.
| Nh 0lnev dnvoted considerable tim,
! T., mo r,nonius- ar the word uunlfornn'
| as arniica tn Tbe cGiI.etIon Of innosts
',.,IIIs etc de,Iorlng ma, mo word
ve,i torritori,i anf,IIrafinn ana ma
M NJ M no"se, to t,v be snid 4
"tnvl ,,,,. ,,J l., ,,,'',,sorii,, H.
ioF p ,ne.'g,'' ,a tb " "r,c,I.si cnndi,jons
"" - ia, ,rhnso NO p.,ar m
Oh hui ~. ~ ,,,,o ,,erso,, ,nd az e,.
s, SIM ' 40 ,,,,,,f,,,nity bnvssycr small
plle' ~ W ,r,,ii g.. tn1nJieiy ii.
Ale ii,'','''0'' ''''
NeIsl',vu ,,,. ,,,,,,la ma state N,
! ~ "a a5-T1,a5 ~ nd, az t,,,
w NJ, o, .,,ai ali not Wont s6rne nortiGns
a. tho rop,inunity rom a burden that
~ ,,,, ~ ,r,,o.SJ mnSn ntbcrs The mover
w. W. 40 'i en ~ unHnrstioned. Nevertheless.
/ tbs no,yer ia exempt has bounds. II
| ca,uot he used Without REGARD To The
! and in view. To crafty mere within Oh
/ caprice. The rules OF uniform place
/ ma restriction upon any division OF tho
/ community into classes for taxable pur.
| noses which the legislature may deem
/ wise.
/ Uniformity between members Of q
class created for taxable purposes !,
! required. 1t Is quite beside the issue
| that congress has mistaken what pub
4 lie pniicy required. on that point con.
I gress Is the sole and final authority
| and its decisions once made controls
1 every other department Of tine govern
ment The statute makes no exemption
/ in favor Of Il class that vs. not based ~
| some obvious line OF public policy, and
| the class being established the uniform
rule = applicable 10 Us menness.
! Take for example the prlnclPtl clas'
! eincatiOuB OF all the grand divisions by