The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-03-14
THE INCOME TAX QUESTION,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLNEY'S
ARGUMENT IN BEHALF OF
IT'S VALIDITY.
THE INCOME TAN IS NOT A DI.
RECT TAX.
Congress Was Seeking to Adjust the Load
of Taxation to the Shoulder of the
COMMUNICATIONS. Crater
and Choate Follow.

ings in the income tax cases in the SUI
preme court today opened with argument
by Attorney General Olney on behalf of
the government for the validity of the tax.
The court room inside the bar was
crowded when the court convened at noon,
and there was no time when the limited
capacity of the room was sufficient to ac-
commodate the audience.
Mr.. Olney began by saying that the
chief interest of the government in the
present case was limited to the consttu-
tional customs which the several plaintiffs
allege to be involved. Whether they are
really involved he would not attempt to
determine. An examination of the plain.
tiff's bills and briefs and arguments seem
ed to him to show that many of the al
legged objections to the validity of the in
come tax simply prejudicial in character.
'They are taken pro formally way of
precaution because of the possibility of
the point developed in some unexpected
connection-and just as good equity
pleader, be his knowledge of the case, of
the pertinent remedies ever so thorough,
never fails to wind up with the general
prayer for other and further relief No
time need be spent in discussing the aver,
ments that the income tax law is an inva-
sion of vested right or takes property with
out due process of law. These PROPOSE
tions are pure generalities, and if there
is anything in them it is because they
comprehend others, which are the real
subjects of probable discussion. Again
suppose it to be true that the income tax
law undertakes to ascertain the incomes
of citizens by methods which are not only
| disagreeable, but are infringements OF
personal rights. The consequence is not
| that the law is void, but that the hotly
denounced inquisitOrial methods cannot
be resorted to.
| The like considerations apply to the
objection that the law is to be pronounced
void because taxing the agencies and in
strumcntaities of the governments OF
definitely adjusted and it is by no means
to be admitted that the income of state
land municipal securities is not taxable
by the United States when assessed aS
part of the total income of the owners
under u law assessing incomes generally
and not discriminating between such Sc
curities and others of like character
But suppose the contrary, the result is
not that the law is so bad in toto, but thai
it is bad only as to the income of state
and municipal authorities.
IF L am right in these observations,
he continued, "the constitutional conten
ton of the plaintiffs simmer down to two
points. One is that an income tax is z
direct tax and must be imposed accord
ing to the rule of appOrtionment and the
other is based upon the alleged violation
of the constitution with regard to UNI
formity."
He declared that whether an income
tax is what the constitution describes al
a "direct" tax, is question as completei!
concluded by repeated adJudlclatioh'
as any question can be. 1t is not dlrec
tax within the meaning of the constltu
ton unless five concurrlng judgments o.
this court have all been erroneous; l., A.,
Speaking on another point raised by th'
lappellant he said no land tax Is aimee
or attempted by the statute-there is NJ
lien on land for payment-and the whol'
scope and tenor of the statute shows th'
contemplated subject of taxation to b
lnersonal property and nothing else.
Mr. Olney devoted considerable tim
to the meaning of the word uniform a
annlied TO the collection of imposts, eN
cises. etc. declaring that the word had
Territorial application and no other. I'm
mower to tax, he said, is for practlcal US
and is necessarily to be adap,eu 10 ln
lpractical conditions OF human llle. ines
lare never the same for any TWO person
and as applied to any comnluniiS; no"
lever small, are infinitely diyerslhed.
No country, for example, no state OF tn
Union. ever adopted a plan OF taAati1l 10
THAT did not except some poTtlohs vi m .n
lcommunity from burden that was I'LL
Iposed upon others. The power 10 40 s.
lis unduestioned. nevertheless, ln
mower to exempt has BOUNDS: ~ can
mot be used without regard 10 the EN-
lin view nor to crafty a mere wnlln % o
Icaprice. The rules OF UNIFORM Piaee t,s
Ino restriction upon any DIVISION VI .m
nommunitv into classes for taxable .pur
noses which the legislature may deen
wise.
II merely declares that the classes beln
formed. the members OF eacn shal U
Ion the same footing and snail pe taAe'
lalike, to be exempted allke witnoue al
cases Uniformity between members o
la CLASS CTedleu lOl
required 1t is quite beside the issu
TO argue that in this or any other cas- cas-:
that congress has mistaken what publ
nolicy requires. On that point congres
is the sole and final authority and 1t
decisions once made controls every dc
partment of the government. The stat
ute makes no exemption in favor, OF
class that is not based on some obyiou
lime of public policy, and the class BEN
Established, the uniform rule is appllcaa
ble to its members. Take for exampl
1.-The principal classifcations of all tn
grand division by which the entire ,popu
liation of the country is separated int
people with incomes of over $4,000 VIII
lare taxable, it is manifest that in thi
distinction congress was aiming at az
complishing a great public object:
was seeking to adjust the, load of taa'1
alton to the shoulders Of the communit
lin the manner which would make !
most easily borne and most. lightly fel
Take another illustration-that of bus
ness corporations: Their net income
are taxed at the standard rate OF z pc
cent. but undiminished by the standar
4