The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-03-12
INCOME TAX LAW.
Attorney General 0lney Argues
in Favor Of 1t Before the
Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, March u. 1S95.-The
announcement that Attorney-General
Olney, Mr. James c. Carter and Mr..
Joseph H. Choate of New York. would
address the Supreme Court upon the in
come tax law. attracted an attendance
upon the session of the Supreme Court
of the United States today that far ex-
\ ceedcd he capacity of the accommoda-
tions of the chamber. Within the rail
sat a number of attorneys and mem
berg of Congress who have not previous
ly attended upon the case. Among them
were Senator Chandler of New Hamp-
shire. Senator Lindsay of Kentucky.
ana ex-Sol.citor General John Goode of
Virginia.
There was but little delay in entering
--npon the progress of the argument. the
only preceding Incident being the in
PRODUCTION to the court of w. H. H.
Hart. a colored man. as candidate for
practitioner at the bar by ex-senator
I1dmunds. Before Attorney General Oh
ney who was the first speaker entered
upon his arguments Chief Justice Fuller
notified him that he might proceed with
out regard to any limitation of time. as
the period for argument had been ex-
tended by the Court.
Attorney General. Olney devoted his
argument on the part of the United States
to the Constitutional questions which
the several plaintiffs alleged to be in
volved. in the cases presented. Many OF
the objections raised seemed to him to
be simply perfume tory-9taken pro for1na
and bygtway appreciation, No time. he
tthought, need be EXPENDED in discussing
sttle, aYefments that the income tax law
was an invasion of vested rights and
took property without due process of
law. These propositions were general
tiles, and If there, was anything in them,
which were the only real subjects of
profitable discussion. Suppose it to be
true that the income TAX law under
took to ascertain the incomes of citi-
zens by methoas which were not only
disagreeable, but were infringements OF
personal rights. The consequence would
the ,hotly denounced inquisitorial methods
could not be resorted to.
y Similar considerations would apply to
the objection that the law was to be pro
nouncedfvoid because taxing the agencies
sand instrumentalities Of the governments
of the. several States. 1t had not yet
No aha ahat It the n
come of the State and municipal securi-
ties was not taxable by the United States
when assessed as part of the total in
come of the owners under a law assess
ing income generally and not discrimin-
ating between such securities and oth-
erS of, the like character. But. suppose
the contrary, the resg,S would be not
to find that the, sssssSas bad in toto.
but that it wasaE as to the income of
State and municipal securities
Is The Attorney General continued:-"If
i am right in these observations, the
Constitutional contention of the plain
tiffS SINNERS down to two points. One
is that an income tax is a direct tax and
must be imposed according to the rule
of apportionment. and the other is based
upon the alleged violation of the. con-
stitutson with regard to uniformity
do not stop to discuss the question what
the Constitutional rule of apportion-
nent is. do not think ought to de-
lay the court for any considerable time
with the question whether an income tax
is direct or indirect.
4 Whether an income tax is what the
Constitution describes as a direct tax"
is a question as completely concluded by
repeated adjudications as any question
can be. 1t is not direct tax within
the meaning of the Constitution unless
FIVE concurring judgments of this court
have all been erroneous.
Z The Attorney General denied that any
land tax was aimed at or attempted by
the statute-there was no lien on land
for payment. The whole scope and tenor
of the statute showed the contemplated
subject of taxation to be personal prop
erty and nothing else.