The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-14
CLOSING ARGUMENT IN THE INCOME
TAX LAW TEST CASES.
Supreme Court Room Packed with
People to Hear the New Workers
Arrangement of the Act.
THE EXEMPTIONS CRITICISED
CERTAIN FEATURES CALLED ga
PRECIOUS" AND "JOB.-LIKE.
Meaning of Direct Taxation-Con-
Opposins Counsel Condemned.

Opposing Counsel Condemned.
WASHINGTON, March 13.-The corridors
about the Supreme Court room were
crowded to-day the corridors about the
Senate and House chambers are at times
when it is understood that something UNI
usual is likely to occur The seats inside
and outside the bar and all the available
standing room were occupied long before
the justices came in at noon and many
who were unable to gain admission re-
manned standing in the corridors for hours,
hoping that ultimately place might be
made for them. a large majority of those
inside retained their places. however, until
Mr.. Choate had concluded his argument.
the last of the iIlustrious series in the in
come tax cases. There was no preliminary
business before the court and Mr.. Choate
began his address promptly on the OPEN
ing of the days session. His argument
was largely technical and legal and he soon
betrayed the fact that he had concluded
his more general remarks yesterday and
indicated that with his Introduction dis
posed of he would henceforth confine HIM
self to the construction of the Constitu-
ton and the presentation of the legal points.
The Inevitable income of all accumulated
interest on land is. he claimed, necessarily
the subject of direct taxation and of no
other. He hoped TO establish this fact and
to further show that such tax was subject
to the rule of apportionment. Whatever
else was not included in the term direct
tax" certainly real estate was included.
There had been universal assent to this
proposition and he would take this as the
+ basis of his first step. He controverted the
proposition that this idea was to apply
only to uninproved land, bur contended
that the application was to all property
designated as real estate. He followed this
argument with the assertion that the in
come from rent of real estate was indis-
tnguishabe from the tax on real estate
itself and co:nbatted the position of the
Attorney-general that the income from rent
n after IT enters the pocket IS money and
ter any tax on land was in substance and
effect a tax on its rental. Returning to
me me position Of the Attorney that
in the pocket, he declared it dis
tnction without difference and was a
court with AL its might. and quoted
precedence to sustain the position. And
furthermore he controverted the right to
tax money lin pocket as a taxation ON
personal property.
THE WORD ..CNIFORMITY
Mr.. Choate then took up the contention
of counsel for the appellants that the word
uniformity had only geographical mean
ing. He claimed that the constitutional re-
quirement. Of. uniformity meant to require
equal and uniform duties and taxes among
citizens throughout the United States. Mr..
Choate contended that in exchange for the
surrender by the States of power to collect
Suties. iuposts and excuses, the general
government had, necessarily. conceded the
protection of all men in their equality before
the law and the rule of uniformity must
be observed. Furthermore he asserted that
this rule had been observed without excep-
tion by. Congress in all tariff acts. He de-
<.lared that the construction put on the word
uniformity" by the opposition counsel was
mostly of Jacobin club. or a Gar of Rus
Such a construction would involve a direct
violation of the Constitution.
Mr.. Carter had declared that there was
no help for ii IL mistake had been made
in the law. but Mr. Choate contended that
,h9 court , was as here for the purpose Of pro,
to what ne designated the breaches OF
the rule OF uniformity made by the income
law 10 incomes in excess Of $4,000. He de-
clared the law to be a deliberate strike on
at the really rich. No wonder. he said. the
President. after ten days deliberations had
wonder the PreHden and the seere e N Of
DO YOU asked Justice Harlan. dis
pu.e the validity of any exemption?''
Mr.. choate Eeplied that he did not but
without explaining his reply took up the
pcrations contending for uniformity in the
treatment of corporations and individual
Justice Brown made an inquiry as to the
policy of tie provision for domestic ex-
penses III the $1,000 expenditure. but Mr.
.Fhoate commended that in this respect the
law was alike in its application to iniiyidu-
ais and corporations in that it made deiuc-
lions Tor expenses in the business of BOTH
CAPRICIOES EXEMPTIONS.
Continuing his argument Mr. fshoa4o ~. IN
the refusal to make the exemption in the
case OF corporations was in the nature of a
penalty, which not levied on Others.
and II was an entering upon policy which
Congress should have refrained from He
characterized rs "capricious" the exemption
OF the property of schools, churches and
similar Institutions as we'll as the saw
ings banks loan associations and mutual
Insurance companies, and said that a far
harsher term would be justified. Was it
just, for instance, to tax the people of Col
Trinity Church or Columbia College of New
York But let the educational and religious
institutions 10. he said: We don't dwell
rDon the policy as 10 them. BE generous
before you are just seems TO have been the
rule applied. Referring to the other exemp-
' iot ne IS; sad that Mr. Vanderbilt or Mr..
ings bank and thus escape taxation under
the law Why" he exclaimed. lit looks
as If there were job in it, Is ii capri
cionsg Is that the way to protect the poor
MANI
Il was O'Clock when Air. cnoate. after
having spoken three hours to-day and forty
minutes yesterday, reached his peroration
He bad, he said, felt responsibility in this
case such as he had never felt in any other
case, and never expected TO feel again. and
he did rot believe that any member of the
court, not excepting the venerable Justice
Field. whose experience as q member of
the court extended from the early days of
the war. who had been called on to deal