The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-05-08
INCOME TAX ARGUMENTS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLNEY CLOSES
 FOR THE UNITED STATES.

Tax a Tax on Lands was as Much a MS
 homer as to Say it was q Tax on Lands ol
 Stock Tax.
 Washington, May 1.-The second days
 proceedings of the re-argument of the
 income tax cases began in the supreme
 court of the United States at noon to.
 day In the presence of greatly re.
 duced audience of spectators, lawyers
 as well as the public in general
 Assistant Attorney General Whitney
 presumed his argument in support of the
 constitutionality of the law under con.
 sideration. He reveiwed the several
 acts passed by the British government
 relating to taxation in America up t1
 the time of the adoption of the constl-
 tuition and the income tax law of Pitt,
 which he said was model of all sub- sequent income tax law, in her colonies
 and in this country which was, of course, familiar to the lawyers and pub
 ltcists of the United States at the time
 the constitution was framed. These MT. Whitney asserted demonstrated the | truth of the fact that In England at that time an income tax was held to be
 a duty and not tax.
 Attorney General Oney closed the ar 1 gument for the United States. After recapitulating the arguments advanced on behalf of the United States at the | former hearing he again contended that l judged by the language of the law it. l self did not create a tax which was | necessarily to be deemed tax on real | estate. The opinion of the court, he said, dealt with the case as If rents were the only subject of the income | tax. That was not the true way of look | ing at the matter. But suppose 1t to be adopted, we then would have a statute | dealing with landlords as a class-tax- | ing them because of their vocation and | measuring the tax by rents actually l received. Such tax was legitimate | and familiar. There was not calling
 in life which was not subject to 1t at the will of the legislature. It was not legally speaking tax on property It was a tax on the calling or employ ment itself and as such should be sus- tained He contended that to call the income tax tax on lands was as much misnomer as to call it bond tax or | Il SLOCh ldA UT Il Idh OH IleTCIldiIuiSCt It was an assessment upon the taxpayer on account of his money spending power as shown by his revenue. It was claimed that to tax the revenue of land. which was personally taxable by one constitutional rule was the same thing as to tax the land itself which was tax able only by another rule. But was not this reasoning fallacious and mis- chievous to the last degree? It might
 be that a tax upon personality in the shape of rents was the same thing to the landlord pecuniarily as a tax upon the land itself But that was no reason
 for disregarding the constitutional dis
 tinction and declaring a tax of the
 one sort to be tax of the others.
 That the logical process was without
 flaw he would admit and eoncede fur
 ther if the single step already appar-
 ntly taken was not retraced the remain ing steps were not unlikely to follow
 But, he said, the result would be a mis- fortune and a disaster To strike at the taxing power of the government was to wound it in the most vital part It was conceded on all hands that this new doctrine that personally generally to- gether with all income must be taxed by the rule of apportionment would cause the most startling inequalities making one man in one part of the Union pay five, six or ten times as much as another man would pay in another part of the Union in respect to the same amount of property. When that precise situation was developed In a tax case in this court in 1796 the I,,J declares that certain taxes must be apportioned the taxes it means are taxes in their nature apportionable and no others. The tax before us is not in it's nature apportionable without vlo- lating every principle of taxation therefore, it Is not a tax which is re- duired to be apportioned."
 In concluding his argument the at torney general expressed the opinion that under this new constitutional doc Urine the federal government would sus- tain serious impairment in one of the most important attributes of sovereign- ty. Theoretically he said, it's taxing power might be unaffected. Practical ly it was cut up by the roots as to a l very large share of the wealth of the | as to all income and as to the ! great mass of personal property. Such l a result, If 1t must be, would be univer- 1 sally deprecated by the American peo- ! pie as a great public calamity.
 When the attorney general in his ar- gument insisted that the new construc- ton would eliminate from the constitu- ton with reference to the exercise Of the taxing power all distinction be- tween real estate and personal proper ty, Justice Brown said "If your argu- ment is valid, would it not follow that tax laid on the income of state and mu- licipal bonds would fall within the same 
 Attorney General Olney-I think so.
 Justice Brown-It would seem that they are alike in principle.
 Attorney General Olney-I should make the same argument.
 The attorney general occupied less han an hour. He was followed by Jo- seph H. Choate, who began the closing address against the income tax law. Mr. Choate said that the reason why he whole country was anxiously await ng the decision of the court was not hat they were concerned about the pay nent of the paltry 2 per cent of income or term of five years but because