Red Lodge picket. [volume] (Red Lodge, Mont.) 1889-1907, 1895-05-11
ON DIRECT TAXATION
O.ney Explains the Law to the
y. S, SJpreme Court.
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN IDEAS
Mr. Choate Endeayors to shatter the
GoyefnmeHts side OF thc In.
come iax Case

Washington. May The second day
rehcaling in the income tax cases Of til,
supreme court today began with AS
sistant Attorney Whitney in the mids
Of AN argument for reversal of the for
nlGr opinion Of the court on the Glles
ton Of the validity Of the federal tax
On incomes derived rom rents. All tht
seats on the bench were again occupied
today, as yesterday, and visitors crowd
ed The courtroom
Whitney said his historical brief
which he had promised yesterday. had
not reached him from the printer, but
ne had already gone almost as far into
the question as n should in auotinu
English proceedings orally and giving
facts as 70 the meaning Of various
words and phrases used III the taxation
laws. He said his statement of facts
would be his principal argument and h.
believed that IN case OF the character
Of the income tax ease facts were the
best argument that could be made. H.
claimed the WeiEhI q The evidence was
TO the Following &ceotnt: First the word
duty had d legal definition The
phrase 'direct tax mad none, but was
borrowed from political economy Sec
ohd, specific per onaI property tax, epc-
cllIc real property tax, aud specific in
come tax We're @ach q duty within thC
meaning OF The constitution. 4 gcnel-
al tax on all personal property a yalu-
alton was not = dutv tmnc.,t nr oxcic,
At all nor was ii direct tax in polit
icaI ecolty1ny. Tajr.t y sn,4ajfin raai
property tax would probably have been
considered an indirect tax Fourth ;
general income ta:. D.oprllv =, t.all4,}
was unknown at the ti,1l,- Il: tin. consti
ton, but was h Gutr Within the mean,
ing Fifth. Specific personal 1,r0rfrf,
tax and specific income. tax WAS a dut1
and not q direct tax
Mr. olney followed Mr. Whitney ana
said, in part. "Th, taxpayer pays this |
year according 10 his ln0ney-spending
ability of last year, and 1t is entirely |
conceiTa BILE that q man who this YEA |
does not earn cent ana X without |
cents worth Of property, real or per |
s0naI may, nevertheless, be assessed on |
hundreds or thousands of dollars of in
come actually received by him last wear.
Yet this is the sort Of tax which is called
tax On real estate, for 10 other reason
than that last years rents form mart 0f |
the yard-stIck by which this years mon
ey-spending capacity is measured A |
greater error, ! submit. could not easily
be committed. IF the distinction be
tween personally and realty in the m2G-
ter OF taxation is mace by the constitu-
ton itself. and that il is a necessary as
SUMPTION Of the argument, whore does
TINS court get the authority to set jt
ASIDE as a matter Of form? No such au- |
tHOilty exists.
1T IS lhtlmated that logically speak
ing, u q taA on real estate is direct
TAX, 50 ~ tax on personal property
ana that IT tax on rents Is a tax or
real estate, SO is a tax on interest ana
oIflueHdS tax on the capital produc. |
lhs tnem. leave the case to the court
l1@, lole. "t li!'s point feellng sure q
TINS at Ivast-that il any consideration
" me" eo1iG heip save the government, {
~ ll'ieS''ly ol one 'I is most import,
al-t a., l'"MoI9 At5 la-+i y 70 be developed J
of lot TOW, g>r