New-York tribune., 1895-02-15
INCOME TAX ~ COURT.
EX-SENATOR EDMUNDs ARGUES AGAINST
IT'S CONsTITUTIONALITY.
VIGOROUS DENIAL Or THE POWER of 'o'
GnEss TO ENACT THE LAw-THE GOV
rpSvrNT'S REPLY.

VIGOROUS DENIAL oF THE POWER OF CON
GnEss TO ENACT THE LAw-THE GOV
ERNMENTs REPLY.
Washington Feb. A.-In the United states court
of Appeals for the Districi Of Columbia to-day a'su
ment was heard in the case involving the cohs"''-
tiona,itv Of the lncOms-tax provision OF the ne"
Tariff law The case is that of John O. Moore
against Joseph : Miller Commissioner OF Internal
Revenue on application for an injunction 10 prevent
him from collecting the tax. Judge HaSher' III '"e
District Circuit Court, decided the case IN laVor ol
the Government and ii comes before tne n'BHe'
court on appeal Ex-Scnlto; George r. f'li'lu'"s
of Vermont. appeared for Mr. Moore anu Eu' =. =
C. Whitney Assistant Attorney-Generai' Tor 'he
Government 49,, - anoo,r
The assignment Of errors on which r Inc dp9eS bIew
was taken briefly as follows me court geiyT sii
erred in ho.dng the act be consiitu2nal IN hoII
Ing that the portion of the ac' taxing incomes
above 5000 and exemptng those less IS eyns,eu ;a
tona. in holding that IL Is awtui 70 tdA e ~ 40
derived from its business in addition to taxing tne
sane income received as dividend aS ptt p3tt VI ~ S,
chargable property OF corporation, IN hoIl.S t"1
the Tx was not direct and hence In Vioiauo" u
Mr Edmunds opened the case for the appetant .ti
by a true statement OF the contentious. ana men
in A short argument touched on all the points
brought out in the assignment OF errors. Inc dIec
vigorously denouLc.I as palpable evil ana mani
festly void. because not apportoned aco2rllnS 10
feature. Mr. Edmunds said. in the case Of incomes
derived from rents or other gains RON rea
class legislation. he asserted: there was no uni
fornity In the measure. The proposed tax nNed Il
distinction between two classes, whlCh Was aTo-
trary and unjust. II Congress could impose a tiN
~ . ner cent on incomes over A0y). why had II
no, the power to turn and tax Incomes Under INA
amount? And who would endure for one minute
such 4 base violation OF the countrys 'onstitu-
ton And yet analogous case is the one before
the court. 80,
mat nn action in equity shall be brought to test
the validity of the act. Mr.. Edmnnds attaekrd II
vigorously. denying the power or Congress 10 pass
such an act AZ 20 the uniformity or the TAX Mr.
Ednlunds contended that II must b" UNIFORM
throughout the United States The exercise or the
nstituonal power to TAX required that All shaiI
be treated alike. Could 1t he reasonably contenGcd
he asked. that constitutional Tarir act cou.H De
passed providing that all persons VINO lnpoi I
goods in less quantities than slDvOO shdl DE
exempt from duties thereon. and all larger I'M
portcrs taxed on their excess OF that amount y
rate must be fixed which would apply TO All aiike
Mr. Whitney. in reply wing for the t)VsrnInent
argued on the basis OF the brief used IN the lower
court He cOntended that the income tax was con-
stitutonal: that the courts had no power 20 inier
fere in the matter prior TO its collection and tnat
ample redress could be had by persons taxed n
they were entitled 20 recover. After brief re-
toindcr by Mr.. Edmunds the court took the case
under adviseinent