The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-03-14
higher rate than man in the same busi-
ness by himself or as q co-nartner

NESS ny nlmSelt or as c0-partner.
Here It is claimed, is distinction with
OUT difference. 1t is common knowledge
| uhat corporations are so successful as
an agency for the conduct of business
and the accumulation of wealth that a
| large section of the community views
| them with intense disfavor as maliciously
and cunningly devised inventions for
making rich people richer and poor people
poorer.
When Mr.. Olney closed Mr.. James G.
Carter began his argument.
He stated that he appeared for the
Continental Trust company, which had
Deen advised that the law was consti-
tutional and he was glad to say they
| had decided to obey the law, for he was
pleased that there was some rich men
who did not object to the imposition of
| such tax.
lie said the juniors in the case, Messrs.
Guthrie and Whitney, had confined them
selves to the law and it remained for the
| Master" by which term he meant to
designate ex-senator Edmunds, to show
that the question was not confnedt to
such narrow limits as to show that it
dealt with the entire government fabric
and in ordering so he asserted that Mr.
Hdmunds had demonstrated that the
question was one with which the court
was not called upon to deal.
Mr.. Edmunds had complained of the
injustice perpetrated by the last congress.
lures on the practice Of medicine, nr.
| any congress can, if it sees
| fit and desires to exercise its pre-
rogative, trample upon the interests of the
| ttope The court cannot project us.
There is no redress. Congress has its
| functions as well as the courts. 1t was
to be regretted that in some cases better
men were not sent to congress.
81 am not ~ he asserted zone of those
who believe that congress has deteriorat-
ed, at least if did believe it, should not
assert it here" which declaration caused
the court to smile and sent q ripple of
laughter through the audience. Mr.. Cart
er asserted that he agreed with the coun-
sci for the appellants in the necessity
for equal taxation. Mr.. Carter .dwelt
upon the tendency of people to evade tax
alton, and took issue with Mr.. Edmunds
on the point that the poor did not pay
the greater burden of the taxes The rich
he said, were able to defend themselves
while the poor were not able to do so.
"Inevitably," he declared, "the pool
must go to the wall"
The object of the income tax was to, il
a measure to correct this inequality ant
shift part of the load from the shoulders
I of the poorer classes to those of the NOR,
opulent.
'This is a source of taxation which NJ
wise statesman should leave untouched
for he can take from that source with
out effecting the comfort or welfare Of
any human being.
Why, for instance, should not Mr.. Ed
munds pay tax upon a fee of $4,000 tn,
same as the Vermont man who owns
$4,000 farm? No, the income tax ha
proceeded on the ground that a part o
the burdens of the tax on on
, should be levied on the rich and not ol
the poor, just as a wise economist in pr
: vate life would not live upon his capital
{ but would devote his income to that pur
/ pose. Furthermore the capacity to col
, lect as well as that to levy tax h
, had in mind. If, for instance, the limi
, of the income tax law had been placed a
$4,000 instead of $4,000 it might be tha
in Texas there would be no one with suf
: ficient income to make the law applicable
to him, and thus Texas would remain al
together untaXed under the law"
) Mr.. Choate followed Mr.. Carter, speak
ing for the appellants. His closing ar
! gument in the case began only 40 min
utes before the court adjourned for the day
; and he only just opened when the hou
= for adjournment arrived.