The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-12
rNcoME-rAx ARGUMENTS.
Speeches by MIR. whitney and MIR. Ed
munds Before the Justices.

toIney-general Whitney resumed his argu-
ment in sustaining the income tax Law be-
fore the Supreme Court of the United States
to-day. Attorney-generaI Oiney, ex-senator
Edmunds and other distinguished counsel
in the case occupied seats at the desk re-
served for attorneys. The court room was
crowded, Mr.. McMilIin, Mr. Springer and
several other members of Congress who
had taken part in the enactment of the In
come tax being among the interested listen
ers.
NJ. Whitney addressed himself to the
question OF uniformity in taxation. in an
swer to the charges that TIE income tax
violated the principle Of uniformity. He
commended that the limit of 5000 fixed by
the law was not class legislation. If
subsequent Congress had sought to amend
the law by including those not previously
exempted by the $1,000 limit, this amend
ment would no doubt be class legislation,
as Ii would apply to a distinct class M
Whitney reviewed Trior decisions in IN
surance and other cases. showing that the
Interpretation Of this court on class legis-
lation would not apply to the income tax.
Concerning the exemptions allowed to GER
tain corporations the Assistant Attorney
general said it most surprising that
this was set up as ground for invali-
federal tax laws showing repeated exemp-
tons In the cases of art societies and many
other corporations. The court had sustained
TAX exemption To manufacturing corpora
tons In the District of Columbia, building
and Loan associations and saving companies
We're frequently exempted by law, as they
We're made UP of poor people to whom the
law gave special consideration. During the
war the law makers even exempted the
mutual insurance companies from the oper-
atoms OF a general tax law Mr.. Whitney
said that the Supreme Court had already
overrulcd the contention that 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, butltthc income tax was not
against the land. but merely against the
total income OF the Individual That this
income came in part from the land was
merely an incident. The income tax is in
mo sense a land tax. 1t is not gross
o lsna o b ether ,ao but On
claim that the federal government cannot
1ax municipal ana local securities held by
Individuals as for instance bonds issued
by New York city He said it had been
decided In the case OF Bonaparte against
the State Of Maryland that a. State could
tax bonds of the city or State of New York
1T the State could exercise this power why
could net the federal government do the
MIR. EDMJNDS'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Edmunas, counsel against fhe tax,
was the next speaker He spoke quietly,
and In a conversational tone, much as he
did when leading figure of the Senate
He stated the contention of his client
against invasion of his rights and an
inspection of his private books and papers
as there was constitutional provision pro-
tecsng the individual it was the rock on
which the contention against this tax was
based Mr. Ednaunds read from the Con-
stitution as to the protection of private
rights. These provisions, he said, were
trite, and yet ii seemed necessary in these
days with such legislation before us, to
recall these constitutional bulwarls against
an invasion of private rights. In a question
of this gravity he would feel disposed to
ask the court not only 70 pursue presidents
and tit them to this subject matter. but to
go back and rule on the entire subject
vital to sustaining private rights. The worst
tyranny of history wag that which came in
action OF Congress in endeavoring to take
away from the courts the right to appeal
income AN law He dig not tb,nk the time
had come when there should longer be
appeal to the courts from acts of Congress
1t would be beyond the function of the Con-
sress to pass an act that would strip the
courts of their rights, and this was just as
true as. to the rights Of the citizen as to
those OF the courts.
Speaking OF the income tax law, Mr.. Ed
munds referred to the provision that the
to deputy collectors. He said the deputy
was not recognized legitimate officer
ever" he said mean to dwell on that, but
merely refer TO 1t I'm passing as one of the
points q vice which bl9om IN the garden OF
other features Of the law providing for the
collection Of the tax, and pointed out that
courts but left to the revenue olcerS the
adjustment, who, he said We're not only the
sit is true" he said, that these returns
are TO be regarded CONFIDENTIAL but how
are we to know that they will always be 50
treated? Is Ii not possible that they may be
handled for instance. like tie condolences
of the United states Senate?"
MIR. Edmnnds then reviewed the cases
heretofore decided, which have been referred
to In. the previous argument, and analysed
fe points invoye fta a. length Hs Mas re-, re-
tax on carriages, when Chief Justice Fuller
called his attention TO the fact that MIR.
Fps AL he remembered. Unusual in num-
hers YES MIR, Eamunds asserted, ''but he
possessed Them many persons possess
virtue and grace.
tvERsTnPPED IT'S BOUNDS.
Nh Edmunds asked the court to ovcrrule
its former decision on the income tax as
given in the Springer case. let u.s. he
said cone back to the true rule Of the
Constitutions We are to expect gradual
and ninites,mal departures from the line
marked out by the Constitution, and
may depart further and further from it,
until at last, like the mariner after a
storm. or the traveller III the wilderness,
after the stars agair come out we are
compelled to rcadjust our course in the new
light that il siven-' He argued that 1.-the
past Congress had overstepped the limits
OF the Constitution in imposing this tax,
because. he said Ii was short of money.
He argued that under this law 95 per cent.
OF the tax would be paid by , per cent. OF
the taxable voters.
1T becomes, said Mr., Edniunds, ian i'm
teresting subject of speculation to how
long the government can last under the
system which allows those who pay moth
ing to tax their fellow citizens. One evil
step will lead TO another, as one vice fol-
lows another until by and by will have
revolution. then anarchy. and then tyrant
TO rule us as the revolving changes SO
round
Justice Harlan asked Mr. Edmunas if he
had formulated definition of the differ
enee between direct and indirect tax, and
he replied that he had. He thereupon pro-
ceeded to give II. saying direct tax was
tax on any kind Of properly and on per-
sons; not in respect ct property in existence,
acquired TO be acquired, NOT call
ing or on the Importation of goods, but in
respect to the things which belong. to. the