New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-09
MR. CHOATE'S FINAL APPEAL.
HE SHOWS THE ABsURDITY OF RETAIN
INC; THE LAW IN ITS PRESENT STATE

Washington, May s.-AmoN Immediately "Po"
the assembling u the supreme Court OF INV
limited states at noon to-day. the chamber pc'hS
flied with spectators drawn there by the an
nounrcment that hc was To speak. Joseph H.
c,oa,o resumed the closing argument In the In
come tax cases Among those who were present
for the time was Otto Gresham. son Of the Secre-
tary of state. a prominent railroad attorney vi
Chicago. -
There remained t. Mr.. Choate about two hours
Of the five allotted for the presentation OF his
side Of the case. and he entered upon his '"s" ~
excellent form for the work
Prior to the resumption Of proceedings Sa'''ue'
shee,harcer. Of counsel for John c. Moore in his
.,,,, for q, Injunction against Internal Revenue
Commissioner Miller. In the District courts
,s,,od ,e.ve n make brief oral argument at
the close OF Mr.. Choate's remarks, to be largely
devoted 10 the question of uniformity, but the
Chiof Justice stated that II would be Impossible
n gran, the application al this time.
Mr. Choate I'm opening said that he would not
nroceed on the line laid down yesterday, out
devo,o himself to the consideration OF certain
ouestions asked Yesterday by the Attorney-Geh-
oral IN his address He wanted to know. SAD
Mr. Choate how long the exemption claimed LOT
rentals lasted Was 1t one year? or hve! or Ten :
Did II follow the money after its investment IN
new forms of property? The law taxes the re-
GENTS from rent at the time they come into the
nossession Of the owner. and Mr. Choate said ne
would not be so foolish as to claim that rent
money after the year 1t was received couio not
be made the subject OF taxation by either 'he
State or the United States.
no EVASION OF THE ISSUE.
A suggestion made by the Assistant Attorney
General Nh! Whitney Mr. Choate said. was
worth notice. II was that the tax was assessed
upon the rent received the year before In an
swer 70 that the speaker said 1t was wei settled
that what could not be done drect.y could not
no done indirectly. The issue could not De
eyaded by showing the time back year ana lay
ing II then any more than at the time OF It's re-
ccipt
Another suggestion or argument mada by the
Acknowledgement was that direct tax cannot
be assessed by apportionment without resu'""b
inequality Well. said Mr.. Choate. as the court
had already decided. that inequality was agreed
upon as a part Of the compact on whioh the
Constitution rests.
Again the Attorney-General contehaen 'Ha'
this construction Of the Constitution, II mann
tained would seriously impair the resources ana
power OF the Government in times or emergency
Figures will not lie" 1t had been sa'u' re-
marked Mr.. Choate. but II was equa.y we"
known that they would convey entirely dinereht
meanings according as they might be hahn'eo
T. N, that point. said Mr Choate their brief filed
in the case presented some statements ana ne
,res which demonstrated the unsoundness Of the
Attorney Generals claim. The rights OF ''"-
.o,e" that document stated. cannot be affected
by cxaggerat0n OF the importance 70 the ""'-
eminent NJ the questions now involved. The
L ~, q
history arose from the necessities 4 the clvil
war ro TO the close of 1866 IT IS computed that
the Government, had expended FOR war purposes
moro than 81 600 900 OOO yet only $i2sos2.H5 came
from this income tax. This shows no" 'ns's-
niacan, a part that tax played In supplying the
country's requirements at the time of is grea'-
est necessity
WHAT SAVED THE COUNTRY
What saved the country was It's high nnarciai
credit and the patriotic attachmer, OF lis ciu-
Gems 20 the system OF government guaranteed
nv i,s Constitution. Those resources, " IL ear
nestly submitted. will be most surely preserved
by faithful administration OF us Fundamental
law. not by efforts to frittcr away the bulwarhs
OF private rights and private property "hich
were established thereby as concl'ions oi the
coun,rv.s existence And finally the Attorney
General declared that the real estate owners
and hondholders were sinking the payment Of
their Just proportion Of the expenditures OF the
Government. which. II this law were made ef-
fectiye they would be compelled 10 pay. MT
Cboate said he did not appear here as an advo-
cate for these classes. but he deemed II to be
his duty TO say that the assertion was inbound
cd In the time Of stress and war. when young
men gave their blood and yielded up their lives
81 the landowners ana
bondholders gave freely and generously Of their
substance 20 sustain the Government and pro-
vide the means whereby the conflict was carried
forward TO n successful Issue.
Mr. Choate then addressed himself directly to
the discussion OF the matters left In dispute by
the decision Of the Court In the Hight OF the
declarations in that decision. The first related
10 the tax on personal property and his con-
tentlon was that the corpus OF personal prop
erty was entitled TO the same protection az real
estate and that n tax on the income derived
therefrom was a direct tax. ~ much aG tax on
rents And I'm this position he was aided by the
frank avowai OF the Attorncy-Gcncral that II
was logically so
Mr.. Choate then went into the history ~ the
question and quoted from the decision OF the
Court OF April S, to sustain his contention mat
personal property was subject only 10 n direct
tax levied and collected by the rule OF appor-
tionment.
Judge Harlan asked II counsel asserted that OF
all personal property.
Mr.. Choate replied that II did not apply to all
personal property, for he admitted the right
OF exemption and ~ selection. But II did apply
TO all personal property under a general as
sessment That was very different. however,
from tax on the use OF property.
LIMITATION OF CONGKEsS'S POWER.
To further question by Justice Harlan. Mr..
Choate said the rule did not apply to banking
institutions. for instance. because that was a
business. lie wished. he said that he could
bear In upon the mind OF every justice the prin-
ciple that In cases where the Congress has no
power to tax its action In that direction must
be restrained. and that where II is permitted to
Congress to tax, but It's action Is limited to a