Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-08
Mr.. Choate's Arraignment Of the In
come Tax Law.
ANSWERING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Why the Constitution Was the
Result of Compromise.
AN ABLE ARG U ME n T

The final argument in the income tax
cases. delivered by Mr.. Joseph H. Choate,
was the attraction of the Supreme Court
of the United States today, and the eminent
New York lawyer drew many more people
to the Capitol to listen to his eloquence
than the limited capacity of the court room
could accommodate. There was long line
of waiting applicants for admission, stretch
ing from the outer door of the court to the
retunda, when the justices filed into the
bench on the stroke of II. In the section
of seats over at the left Of the bench the
ladies of the Supreme Court circle made
bright patch of color against the white
walls, and the semi-circular space allotted
to members of the bar was crowded with
prominent attorneys and half dozen men,
bers of the last Congress.
Before the argument had begun Attorney
General Olney moved the admission to the
Supreme Court bar of Mr.. ]. Walter Bland
ford, the private secretary to the Attorney
General, and the clerk administered the
oath to Mr.. Blandford.
Attorney Shellabarger of the firm of
Shellabarger & Wilson, which represented
the appellant in the Moore case, asked for
leave to deliver a brief oral argument in
that case, after Mr.. Choate's plea, assert
ing that Mr.. Moore's attorneys had not
made any oral presentation OF his case be-
fore a full bench, and thought they were
The request however, was refused. 1t
apparently came as somewhat OF surprise
to the court, and a brief consultation was
held by the chief justice with his associ-
ates, after which ne told Mr.. Shellabarger
that it would be quite impossible for the
court to grant the request. He added that
the present hearing was being conducted
upon a special order, and said it could not
be interfered with by giving attention to
any other matter. He stated that leave
had already been given to file briefs in the
Moore case, that these would be consid-
cred, but that the oral argument could not
be heard.
Mr.. Choate then began the second INSTALL
ment of his argument with brief reply to
some of the suggestions of the Attorney
General.
Rentals aid Their Exemptions.
He said that he had intended to restate
the claims of the appellants on the ques-
ton of real estate and direct taxes, but his
time was too brief for. that, and he would
refer the court to the briefs on these
points.
He fist took up for examination the ar
gument Of the Attorney General, that If
the decision in regard to rentals Was to
stand there could be no limit of the time
the exemption should run. The Attorney
General had pleaded that with such a
ruling in force 1t might be impossible to
ever tax the proceeds derived from rents,
however they might be invested. Mr..
that the law left no such question open.
The provision was for taxing rents at the
moment of their receipt, and he, for one,
should not be so foolhardy as to claim that
when the rent money should be reinvested
1t would not be subject to the original
ruling of the court in this case.
He combated the suggestion of the At
torney General that the provision of the
law is for the taxation of rents derived in
former year, saying that the Constitu-
tion provides that no direct tax shall be
levied except by apportionment. You
can't" he said, ''by showing it back a
year, reach 1t any better than at the mo-
ment."
Mr. Choate declared that he did not see
the difficulties which appeared to fall
within the line of the Attorney Generals
vision IN levying tax by apportionment,
but even If these difficulties did exist as
claimed, 1t still remained that the consti-
tutional compromise had pointed out this
as the only method of levying direct taxes.
Taking up the plea of the Attorney Cen
eral that the decision already rendered as
to the invalidity of income taxes on rents
and bonds would cripple the resources Of
the government in times Of great emer-
gency. Mr.. Choate contended that the facts
cbtafnable did not support this contention,
and he proceeded to show that of the vast
sum expended in the civil war a very small
proportion had been derived from the in
come tax, which was in operation at the
time. He said that up to 1866 four thou
sand million dollars had been expended in
carrying 1t on, and he believed that an
equal sum had been spent on account of
the war in paying expenses on other ac-
counts traceable to the war since it's close,
and yet only about S36O,0O0,0OO of this vast
amount had been raised under the income
tax, and of this sum he did not believe that
to exceed two hundred millions had been
received from the tax on rents and personal
property.
Mr.. Choate also took issue with the At
torney General in the view that the land
he lders were disposed to shirk their share
OF the responsibility in times of peril to
the country and said that while in the war
of the rebellion the young men had gone
forth to fight their country's battles and
81 ed their blood, the property owners had
contributed their share for the support of
the cause without stint. No such argu-
n,ent was, he said. worthy the considera-
ton Of the court.
Taxation in the Constitution.
Taking up the thread Of his affirmative
argument Mr.. Choate declared that the
question of taxation had been one of the
nest prominent In the minds of the franz
ers of the Constitution. The members of
who knew all about the question, for they
had studied it here their ancestors had
in England under the Plantagenets, the
Stuarts and the Tudors. Every one knew
luton and that 1t had been the cause of
1t. Consequently the upper
most thought in their minds was to frame
an instrument of government which would
carefully guard the interests Of the people
in this respect.
The conditions were such that but for the
fact that compromise was hit. upon no
at all could have been adopted
This compromise resulted in the division of
taxes into two classes, with a wide gulf
between them. Direct taxes were on one
ride and duties. excises and imposts on the
other. No mention was made Of indirect
taxes for the reason that it was not de-
sired to leave any discretion to Congress
One class was to be collected according to
the system of uniformity, and the other by
appcrtionment, which latter system, Mr.
Olney has told us, is efete.
Evidently, he contended, the purpose was
to so guard the levying of the taxes that
the poorer and more populous sections
could not lay the principal burden on the
richer and less populous.
Reasons for Exemptions All Similar.
Mr.. Choate from this time forth proceed
ed upon the basis that the court had decid-