The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1895-05-15
CLOSING ARGUMENT
In the Income Tax Gases is Made
by Joseph H. Choate.
The Eminent New York Lawyer AttaclSl
the Constitutionality of the Law and
Contends that 1t is Tax Upon
: Labor, Not Upon Capital
. "A Mastery Plea.

Joseph II. Choate resumed the closing
argument in the income tax cases.
There remained to Mr.. Choate about
two hours of the five allotted for the
presentation of his side of the case. In
opening he that said he would devote
himself to the consideration of certain
questions asked on Tuesday by the at
torney general in his address. He
wanted to know, said Mr.. Choate, how
long the exemption claimed for rentals
lasted. Was it one year? or five? or ten2
Did it follow the money after its invest
ment in new forms of property?
A suggestion or argument, made by
the attorney general was, that direct
tax cannot be assessed by apportion-
ment without resulting in inequality.
Well, said Mr.. Choate, as the court had
already decided, that inequality was
agreed upon as a part of the compact
on which the constitution rests. Again,
the attorney general contended that
this construction of the constitution,
if maintained, would seriously impair
the resources and power of the govern
ment in times of emergency.
Figures will not lie it had been
said, remarked Mr. Choate, but it was
equally well known that they would
convey entirely different meanings, ac'
cording as they might be handled.
Upon that point" said Mr.. Choate,
''their brief filed in the case presented
some statements and figures which
demonstrated the unsoundness of the
attorney generals claim"
Mr. Choate soon addressed himself
directly to the discussion of the mat
ters left in dispute by the decision OF
the court in the light of the declara-
tions in that decision. The first related
to the tax on personal property and his
contention was that, the corpus OF per-
sonal property was entitled to the same
protection as real estate and that tax
on the income derived therefrom was a
direct tax as much as a tax on rents.
And in this position he was aided by
the frank avowal of the attorney gem
eral that it was logically so. Mr. Choate
then went into the history of the ques-
ton and quoted from the decision OF
the court of April to sustain his conten-
ton, that personal property was sub
icct only to a direct tax levied and col
,lected under the rules of apportion-
ment.
Justice Harlan asked if counsel as
serted that of all personal property?
Mr.. Choate responded that it did not
apply to all personal property, for he
admitted the right of exemption and
exception. But it did apply to all per-
sonal property under a general assess
ment. That was very different, how
ever, from tax on the use of property.
In closing, Mr.. Choate said:
''Now have few minutes more tc
speak upon the other question left
open by the court, namely-let me
state it exactly as it is-whether the
inroads made upon the law by the de.
cision already made, and that which
we hope will be made constitute an in
valuation of the whole act. think il
the court please that there is no doubt
about what the question intended tc
be submitted there is. Does it follow
because the act has been left in its
present mangled and mutilated condi
tion it should be buried? | submit thai
it does not necessarily follow that argu
ment must be answered in the affirm
ative. This mangled and mutilateC
corpse has too long remained unburied
In it's present condition it shocks th'
sensibilities of the entire people of th'
United States.
What was the object of it? 1t was tt
strike at the accumulated wealth o
the old seal board states. If your honor
please. in the debates of congress th
name OF one man, conspicuous abov
all the rest. was said to be the objec
struck at because he lived abroad; be
cause he owned acres and square mile
of income-yielding real estate; becaus
he used nothing in America which wa
the subject of an indirect tax aO
therefore there was no other way q
reaching him. And he Slipped throug
their hands under your honors' dec
sion; and everybody in the same catt
CORY has done the like. Can you st
that congress, under the circumstance!
would have agreed upon the passage {
the law if it had seen that the prime
pal object of the law was to escape.
Landholders have escaped: bondhol'
ers have escaped. We believe yor
honors will be constrained to hold thu
the receivers of incomes from personi
property will escape. Who are left
be taxed? We are left, the bone an
sinew and brains and nerves, scattere
throughout this great community 4
seventy million people.
What was intended to be tax upc
capital turns out to be tax on labo
Whatever way you may look at
within Justice Shaw's decision or al
definition ever laid down which can
called authoritative, this act as it no
stands, mangled by the pruning-lkni
of the constitution in the hands of tn
court, your honors cannot see that Il
legislature ever would have passed
in this form. On the contrary, you C;
see, and unless you shut your eyes
absolute blindness you must see, tn
the legislature never would have so e
acted it.
Don't Want to be Annexed.
New York, May "a special to t
Herald from Nassau, N. p, says: Ne
L.a l.oo,, ,.aoa;yad bara from Santia