The record-union., 1895-03-08
INCOME TAX LAW.
Question of Its Constitutionalfty Being

Question of Its Constitutfonalfty Being
Heard Before the Supreme Court.
WAsHINGToN, March The Supreme
Court did not reach the income tax cases
until o'clock to-day, when w. D. Guth-
rie was recognized to open the case for
the appellants. He appeared especially
for Messrs. Pollock and Hyde, who ap-
pealed their cases against the Farmers
and Continental Trust Companies of New
York from the decision Of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Southern
District of New ork.
Mr.. Guthrie devoted himself to an out
line OF the argument proposed to be made
by the counsel for the appellants and had
not concluded when the court at o'clock
adjourned for the day. He stated that
they would depend principally upon
showing that the present incom tax law
was unconstitutional, because OF its want
OF uniformity, and quoted at length from
the provision OF the law to show that the
tax Is not uniform, contending that Con-
gress had no right under the Constitution
TO levy tax for the duty, excise or i'm
port which was variable or lacking in
uniformity as to individuals and CORPORA
tions, because 1t was the fundamental
rules that burdens III these respects
should be equal upon all.
MIR. Guthrie said the two cases against
the trust companies were similar but
that he would devote himself principally
to the Pollock case, because in that case
the interests involved were greater than
IN the other, but while this company
conducts an immense business, it's Dusi-
ness IS one which might be carried on as
well by private partnership as by a
stock company, in which case it would be
exempt under the laws from the income
tax.
lie said Mr.. Pollock was shareholder
IN this company, the net income or
profits OF which during the past year
exceeds $500, 900, of which so, 900 repre-
sents rents OF real estate and about
$4,000 investments in municipal bonds,
which latter Investment could not, he
claimed, be taxed under a former de-
cision OF the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Guthrie asserted that the provision
of the law eXempting all incomes under
S4UOO would cause 1t 10 fall upon less
than two per cent. Of the population of
the l Unlted States, and the law was, there
fore, class legislation. He also showed
that the tax was not uniform as regards
corporations, OF which favored class
was exempted, as, for instance, mutual
insurance companies and building asso-
clatons, as we'll as partnerships and re-
| ligious ami benevolent institutions As
to the exemption of churches, benevolent
concerns, counsel would have nothing to
say, as there was enough in the other ex-
emptions.
AS illustrative of the effect of the opera
ton OF the law, he pointed out that an in
dividual owning real estate bringing in
an income Of 5000 would pay $50 tax,
while a corporation would be required to
pay double that amount He also in
stanced the case of a partnership of five
persons doing a business amounting to
$4,000 a year which would be required to
| ThQU ~ a Ia
OF the same persons would be compelled
to pay S4O0 In a word, he said, the ap-
plication of the law would vary accord
ing to ownership. The corporation was
only an aggre2 alton of individuals, and
IN most corporations a part at least of the
stock was owned by the middle classes.
Mr.. Guthrie will resume his argument
at Il o'clock tomorrow,