The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-03-12
TALKING OF The TAX
The LlVyerS Discuss InCom,s and The
Like.
1T IS VERY BADLY MIXED UP
Before the Supreme Court OF the
United States Yesterday Able
Men Made Eloquent Argu-
ments on the Subject.

TlSnIS on Ine
WASHINGTON, March 11.-Assistant At
torney General Whitney resumed his ar
gument in sustaining the income tax law
before the supreme court to-day. Whit
ney addressed himself to the question of
uniformity in taxation. He contended
that the limit of 5000 fixed by law was
not class legislation. If a subsequent
congress had sought to amend the law by
including those not previously exempted
by the "a 900 limit, this amendment would
no doubt be class legislation, as it would
apply to distinct class. Mr.. Whitney
reviewed prior decisions in insurance and
other cases, showing that the interpreta-
ton of this court on class legislation
would not apply to the income tax. Con-
corning the exemptions allowed certain
corpora tons, the assistant attorney gen.
eral said it was most surprising that this
was set up as a ground for invalidating
the tax. He read from numerous federal
tax laws, showing repeated exemptions in
the cases of art societies, and many other
corporations.
Mr.. Whitney said that tho supreme
court had already overruled the conten-
ton that the taxation of land values aud
rents, as made by the income tax law,
was invalid. Tho state taxes were against
the land and not against the individual,
but the income tax was not against the
land but merely against the total income
of the individual. AS this income came
in part from the land, it was merely an
incident. The income tax is in no sense
q land tax. 1t is not on gross income
from the land and other sources, but on
net income.
Mr. ITbifnay troir IN 81 ~, he
federal government cannot tax municipal
and local securities held by individuals,
rs 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 n state could tax the bonds
of the city or state of New York. If the
state could exercise this power, why could
not the federal government do the same?
Whitney concluded at / 80 o'clock and
was followed by Mr.. Edmunds, counsel
against the tax.
Edmunds read from the constitution as
TO private rights. These provisions. he
said, were trite and yet it seemed neces-
sary in these days, with such legislation
before us, to recall these constitutional
bulwarks against an invasion of private
rights. In a question of this gravity he
would feel disposed to ask the court not
them in this matter. but 90 back and rule
upon the entire subject, so vital to sus-
tanning private rights. The worst tyranny
of history was that which came i'm the
guise of a relief. He first spoke of the
action of congress in endeavoring to take
away from the courts the right to appeal
for protection, as was the case in the in
come tax law. He did not think the time
bad come when there should be no longer
an appeal to the courts from the acts of
congress. 1t was beyond the function of
congress 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 10 those of the courts. He referred to
the provision that the tax payer was re-
quired to make his returns to deputy COL
lectors. He said the deputy was not
recognized as legitimate officer under
the constitution.
II do not, however," he said, "mean 10
dwell on that, but merely to refer TO it in
passing as one of the points of the vice
which bloomed in the garden of the last
congress-" He criticized many other fea-
lures of the law providing for the collec-
ton of the taxes pointed out that il left no
room for resort or appeal to the courts,
but left to the revenue officers the adjust
ment, who, he said, were not only final
judges. but inquisitors as we'll.
Mr.. Edmunds then reviewed the case
heretofore decided, which has been re-
ferred to in the previous argument, and
discussed the points involved at length.
lie was referring to the Hilton case, in
volving a tax on carriages. when Chief
Justice Fuller called his attention to the
fact that Hilton had an unusual number
of carriages, lbs as he remembered it.
Unusual numbers, yes" Mr.. Edmunds
asserted. "but he possessed them as many
persons possess virtue and grace He
asked the court to override it's former de-
csion on the income tax as given in the
Springer case. lie argued that the past
congress had overstepped the limits of the
constitution in imposing this tax, be-
cause, he said, it was short Of money. Ho
argued that under this law IS per cent. of
the tax would be paid by , per cent. of tho
taxable voters.
at becomes" said Mr.. Edmunds, IAN
interesting subject of speculation as TO
how long n government can last under n
system which allows those who pay moth
ing TO tax their fellow citizens"
Justice Harlan asked Mr.. Edmunds II
he had formulated definition of the DIFF
ference between a direct and indirect tax
and no replied he had.
He thereupon proceeded to give II, say
ing direct tax was a tax upon any kind
of property and upon persons, not in re-
spect of property in existence. acquired or
to be acquired, while an indirect tax IN
Guided all the rest. as referred TO in the
constitution under the head of duties. i'm
ports and excuses, which would be heavy
or light on each person, depending upon
his will.
''Do you not" asked Justice Brown,
"regard a tax that is paid by person
himself as a direct tax?" and Edmunds
assented.
Asked by Justice Shiras to give a defini-
ton of excise, he quoted Jacobs q john
son, where the latter says it is a hateful
tax" collected by "wretches.'
Justice Harlan suggested the definition
would fit his (Mr. Edmunds'l idea of the
.,.anan ~ % -vh.nL Mr. = l-,nnL. 70