Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-07
ase the cbnrt had laid down the princi-

pies:
1. That as between the-rules Of apportion-
nent and Of uniformity the lattet- Is to re-
ceive the preference in cases OF doubt
g That the same article may be the sub
ject of both direct and indirect taxation.
8. That II tax is mixed in effect it
should be rated as Indirect
4. That the English Technology was en-
titled to great weight.
Mr.. Whitney also reviewed the Pacific in
surance. the Veazie bank tax and the Scha-
ley cases, adducing from each precedeats
In support OF his position.
Attorney General OIney Speaks.
Attorney General Olney followed Mr..
Whitney and began speaking about 80
pm. Mr.. Oney said:
The preseat posture of the case I con-
ceive to be this: The contention of the
government at the former hearing was
that the validity of general income tax
law could not now be drawn in question
being coz clusyely settled by repeated adj
publications of this court as well as by the
Uniform and long continued practice of the
other departments of the government. That
conteA ton has been sustained. though. by
an equally divided court, with two excep-
tiers. One relates to the income of state
ard municipal securities and presents a
question upon which do not ask to be re-
feard at this time The other relates to
rents of real estate, in respect of which
the position of the court is that they are
rot embraced within the scope of the pre-
vious decisions. This conclusion Is one of
which l am unable to feel the force or APP
preciate tie justice, and, as the question
is of immense Importance to the govern
ment, politically and pecuniarily, I shall
consume a few moments in respectfully
urging its reconsideration.
1t is important to bear IN mind the pre-
else question. 1t is not whether there may
not be a tax on rents which must be DEEM
ed to be a tax on the land producing them.
1t is not whether land tax measured by
rents or rental value may not be the most
efficient and most scientific way of taxing
land The question Is, does this income
tax law create a tax which is necessarily
to be deemed a tax on real estate?
For answer the best source of informa-
ton is, of course, the statute itself. The
most superficial examination shows that
no real estate tax as such is intended by
Congress. II it had been there would have
been provision for the appraisement, by
rental value or otherwise, of vacant and
reproductive land. If it had been there
would have been provision for the appraisc-
ment, by rental value or otherwise, of
houses and grounds which are occupied
as hCmeSteadS and for purpose of private
enjoyment and pleasure. The owner of
vacant ard unproductive lands held for
Investment and speculation, whether they
be city lots or thousands of unimproved
acres, pays nothing under this law on ac-
count of such lands. The millionaire, with
half a milion-dollar mansion in the city
and an equally costly residence by the
SedSiue, pays nothing under This law. Inc
manufacturer or the railroad corporation
the very basis of whose business is the
interest in the real estate occupied and
used therefor, pays nothing under this law
on account of such real estate. 1t is inl-
possible to contend. therefore, that this
law oontemplates real estate as such as
the subject of the tax imposed by it. If
there could be a possible doubt on that
point it is excluded by the enumeration of
the subjects of the tax contained in section
- Each and every one is personal prop
erty. and so carefully Is the distinction
the succession tax is reached it is express
ly limited to money and the value of all
personal property acquired by gift or in
heritance."
Mr.. Oiney discussed at length the intent
of Congress.