Mexico weekly ledger., 1895-03-14
He SustainS The Income Tax.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY-GENERAL
WHITNEY APPEARS BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT.
Mr.. Edmunds Attacks Its Constitu.
tionality and Says 1t Invades
Private Rights.


sistant Acknowledgement Whitney re-
sumed his argument in sustaining the
income tax law before the Supreme
Court of the United States to-day.
Attorney-Ge neraI OIney, Senator Ed
munds and many other distinguished
counsel in the case, occupied seats at
the desk reserved for attorneys. The
courtroom vas crowded. MI. Me
MILAN, Mr.. Springer and several other
members of Congress who had taken
part in the enactment of the income
tax among those present. Mr..
Whitney addressed himself TO the
question of uniformity in taxation, in
answe to the charge that the income
tax violated the principle of unformi-
ty. He commended that the limit oil
S 1000 fixed by the law was not class
legislation. If a subsequent Congress
had sought to amend the law by in
Guiding those not previously exempt
ed by the $1,000 limit this amendment
would no doubt be class legislation, as
it would apply to a distinct class. Mr..
Whitney reviewed prior decisions in
insurance and other cases, showing
that the Interpretation of this court
on class legislation would not apply to
the income tax.
Concerning the exemption to GER
tain corporations the Assistant Attor-
ney-Genera1 said it was most surpris-
ing that this was sought 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. The court had sustain
ed tax exemption to manufacturing
corporations in the District of Colum-
bia and building and loan associations
and saving companies were frequently
exempted by law, as they were made
up of poor people to whom the law gave
special consideration. During the wal
the lawmakers even exempted the
mutual insurance company from the
operations of the general tax law.
Mr.. Whitney said the Supreme Court
had already overruled the contention
that the taxation of land values an6
rentals as made by the income ta1
was invalid. The State taxes were
against the land and not against the
individual, but the income tax wa,
not against the land, but merely
against the total income of the in
dividual. That this income came in
part from land was merely an Incl
dent. The Income tax is in no sense
a land tax. 1t is not on gross income
from land or other sources, but on ne
income.
Mr.. Whitney took up the claim tina
the Federal Government cannot tar
municipal securities held by individ
uals, as, for instance, bonds issued BY
New York City. He said it had beer
decided in the case of Bonaparts
against the State of Maryland that thu
| State could not tax bonds of the Stat.
or city of New York. If the Stat.
tsassla
not the Federal Government do the
same?
Mr.. Whitney concluded at 1880, anl
was followed by Mr.. Edmunds, coun'
sci against the tax, He spoke quietly
and in a conversational tone, mucI
as he did when a leading figure of th,
Senate. He stated the contention o
his client against the invasion of hi
rights and an inspection of his privat.
books and papers. If there was !:
constitutional provision protecting
the individual it was the rock upo1
which the contention against this tai
was based.
Mr.. Edmunds read from the Con
stitution as I'd the protection of pri
vate rights. These provisions, b,
said, were trite, and yet it SCENE,
necessary in these days, with sucl
legislation before LIS, to recall thes.
constitutional bulwarks against an in
vasion of private rights. In a ques
ton of this gravity he would feel dis
posed to ask the Court not only t,
pursue presidents and fit them to thi
subject matter, but to go back an,
rule upon the entire subject s o vital t.
sustaining rights. The worst tyrann,
of history was that which came in tn,
guise of a tax. He first spoke of tn,
action of Congress in endeavoring t,
take away from the Courts the RICH
to appeal for protection, az was tn,
case in the income tax law.