The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-01-11
INCOME TAX IS DISCUSSED.
TT W4S THE CAUSE OF 4 LONG DE-
 BATE IN THE SENATE.

There Were Several Ways to Test the
 Constitutionality of the Law.
 Washington, Jan. 1O.-The senate to- day took up the urgent deficiency bill by vote of 43 to Cameron and HilD.
 The first amendment in the bill which aroused opposition was that inserting the word ractional" in the item ap- propriating $1OO,0OO by Mir Blanchard, dem., of Indiana, but was adopted yeas 40; nays Blanchard, Kyle and Peffer).
 The amendment appropriating $25,0O0 for the enforcement of the Chinese ex- clusion act having been reached. in- quiry was made by Mr. Mitchell, dem,, of Oregon, whether that was all the amount recommended by the secretary of the treasury. The reply of MT. Coclrell was that the secretary recom- mended $75,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year, but that this was an urgent deficiency bill, and that the balance would be provided in a later bill.
 Income tax provisions in the bill 1 $211, 800 for salaries and expenses Gor six months) of 3O9 additional deputy collectors, including stationery and printing, to carry into effect the act of August 26, 1894, imposing a tax on incomes; and $1S,O0O for salaries and expenses of ten additional revenue agents for the same purpose. These items were laid over without action for the present.
 The amendment inserting an item of $200, ,000 for continuing improvement of the harbor of Galveston, Tex, gave rise to criticisms by Senators Mitchell, rep, of Oregon. and Platt, repp of Connecticut, on the ground of favorit- ism. It was explained and defended by Senators Cockrell, dem., of Mis- souri, Blanchard, dem of Louisiana, and Coke, dem., of Texas, and was agreed to with the insertion of the words under existing contract" The bill having been finished in committee except the items as to collection of income tax. Mir Hill offered an amend ment, the one of which MT. Quay, rep, l or 1GuuSylNdIllts BehNN llNNASN' AAsNN nothing in any law to the contrary shall preclude any court of the United States having jurisdiction of the par ties from considering and determln- ing as to the constitutionality or valid ity of the income tax"
 MT. Cockrell inquired as to the neces- sity for such an amendment and whether there was any law that pre- cluded the courts now.
 Mir. Quay said there was, and referred to section 3,224 of the revised statutes, which provides that no suit for the pur- pose of restraining the assessment or the collection of taxes shall be brought in any court.
 ''That is for restraining suits to set aside the assessment or collection of taxes, not for testing the constitution ality of any act" said Mir. Cockrell. "No government could permit injunc- tions to b2 granted against the collec- tion of taxes.
 Mir. Hill said he was not prepared to discuss the question to-day, except par tially. He would state, however, the precise point involved in the amend nlellt. 1IHTb were several ways lD ltSl the constitutionality of statute im- posing tax One would be where the officers were proceeding to make an assessment or collection to restrain it before the tax has been collected by a suit for a permanent injunction. But for the statute referred to any person liable to pay the income tax could bring suit for a permanent injunction.
 The other method was to wait until the tax had been collected and then bring suit. The easiest the best and simplest method of raising the question would be by a preliminary suit of in- junction which could he heard imme- diately, appealed by either side and could be speedily heard and decided by the supreme court of the United States The object of the amendment was to re- peal the section for the purpose of this particular proceeding.
 It was exceptional legislation. There was founded judgment on the part or the legal talent in this country that the income tax was unconstitutional could not be denied. The best lawyers had expressed their opinion on the sub ject.
 MT. Peffer, pop. of Kansas, moved to lay Mir, Hills amendment on the table
 MT. Cockrell asked MT. Peffer to with draw that motion, and in remarks on the general subject said that no party convention had protested against 1t ex- cept that convention which nominated MT, Hill for governor, and he did not believe that that platform had been en- dorsed by the votes of the people of New York.
 MT. Hill replied, good-humoredly, that that convention had commended the tariff bill which Mir Cockrell had sup ported, and that if the result was to be taken in the way which the senator from Missouri suggested it was not a very clear endorsement of that bill. Naughter)
 MT. Peffer had no doubt that the sen ators from New York and Pennsylvania CHill and Quay), with their coadjutors, had made up their minds to defeat the income tax and had commenced thus early t0 lay the foundation for doing so. He was in favor of the income tax. He believed to be the duty of the men of e