Waterbury evening Democrat., 1895-05-08
MIR. OLNEY'S ARGUMENT
His Speech In the Income Tax
 Hearing.
MIR. OH0ATE MADE THEooURT GRIN.

MIR. CHOATE MADE THEOOURT GRIN. The Attorney General Makes Some Clear | and Concise Statements After an In- | VOIved Address by His AssocIate-Mr. | Choate Had Just Begun His Remarks.
 WASHINGTON, May S-The bearing of | tho income tax caso before the supreme | court still continues and tho arguments | are attracting widespread attention. The | courtroom accommodations were moro than sufficient for those who listened to Junior Counsel Whitney's dry discussion of the governments case Even the jus tices looked drowsy. Attorney General Olney next mado n short and powerful ar gument. He naturally commanded moro attention than did his assistant, and, al though his address was brief, it was mono tho less effective and powerful Much of the plea was discussion of the taxability of rcnts in reply to the opinion on that subject delivered by Chief Justice Fuller. Many authorities wore quoted In support of the governments position, many of them new and apparently having | direct bearing upon the question at is- sue Almost every branch of political economics and of constitutional law was | explored to prove that the law of 1894 did not include the direct taxes exempted by l tho constitution.
 Only the briefest time was given to an | illustration of the question of uniformity l in taxation. The government counsel con tended that this was purely a geographical l provision. Tho attention paid by MT. Ol- | ney to the question of rents shows what importance he attaches to that branch of the subject. If the recently delivered | opinion of the court on that count is not | reversed, he fears that all of the law will l fall with it
 l MT. Olney's Address.
 The attorney general said: II fully ap- | preciRte the liberality of the court both in according this rehearing and in the mat | ter of the timo allowed for argument. I realize at the same timo that 1t cannot be | fairly taken advantage of merely to re- iterate considerations already fully pre- sented, and that 1t should be availed of only for new matter now proved to be inn | portant. but which, so far as the govern ment is concerned, has thus far been prac- tioally untouched.
 "The present posture of the case I con ceive to be this: The contention of the government at the former hearing was that the validity or a general income tax law could not now be drawn in question, | indications of this court, as well as by the uniform and long continued practice of the othor departments of the government. That contention has been sustained, though by an equally divided court with two exceptions. One relates to tho in come of state and municipal securities and presents question upon which I do not ask to be reheard at this timo.
 The other relates to rents of real es- I AaAA 1wH tx txA.h q tho court Is that they are not embraced within the scope of the previous decisions This conclusion Is one of which l am un- able to feel the force or appreciate the jus tice, and as the question Is of immense importance to the government politically and pecuniarlly shall consume n few mo- monts in respectfully urging it's reconsid- eration.
 Ut is important to bear in mind the !. precise question. It is not whether there may not be n tax on rents, which must be deemed to be a tax on land producing l them. It is not whether n land tax meas ured by Iehts or rental value may not be , the most efficient and most scientific way of taxing land. The question is, Docs this income law create a tax which Is nee essarily to be doomed a tax on real cstatei
 For answer, tho best sourco of infor. nation is of course the statute itsolf The IHOSG sHONS Inul no real estate tax. as such, is intended by congress. If it had been there would have been a provision for tho appraisement by rental value or otherwise of vacant and unproductivo land. If 1t had been, thorC would have been provision for the appraise ment by rental value otherwise ol houses and grounds which arc occupied as homesteads and for purposes of private en joyment and pleasure
 SomO Neglected Points.
 l The owner of vacant unproduCtivC lands held for investment or speculation whether they be city lots or thousands o unimproved acres. pays nothing under this law on account of such lands. ThI millionaire with $500. 900 mansion 1T the city and an equally costly residence by the seashOre pays nothing under this law The manufacturer or tho railroad corpora tion, tho very basis of whoso business f. the interest in the roal estate occupied anC used therefor. pays nothing under thi law on account of such real estate.
 Ut is impossible to contend therefore that this law contcmplatos real estate. a such, as the subject of the tax imposed b, 1t. If thore could he possible doubt or that point. 1t Is excluded by tho onunera tion of the subjects of the tax contained in section 2S Each and every ono is DOT sonal property, and so carefully is tho dis tinotiOn observed that when tho claus imposing tho succession tax is reached l is expressly limited to money and tn value of all personal property acquired b, gift or inheritance.
 Such being tho unmistakable purpos of the law. is it truo that congress Ina stultif1ed itself: Is it truo that it Ina managed to do the precise thing it mean to avoid doing: That IS supposed to b fnv ic rayNta 0r placed among the cOnstit tents of his tax | Gbls income. But tho intent of congress is to be recognized and effectuated If pos Eible and its inclusion of rents In taxabl income is not to be suffered to defeat tha intent If any legitimate view of the stat ute will prevent 1t. Can such view b taken? I respectfully submit not onI that 1t can be. but that 1t should be-tha 1t Is tho only reasonable and just view.
 The opinion of the court deals wit
 the case as if rents were the only subjeC of the income tax law. That is not, l sut init, the true way of looking at the mat ter. But suppose 1t to be adopted-whn follows! We then have n statute dealin
 with landlords as a class. taxing theI because of their vocation of landlord an
 measuring the tax by rents actually rt ceived.
 It Is Not Glass Taxation.
 The statute. however, cannot properl
 be looked at in that way. It is not n sta
 ute imposing tax upon particular olas
 of persons-namely. landlords-in respeC to particular source of incomo-namelJ rents- It is a statute-special exemption U being not now cOnsidered-it Is a statul
 taxing all persons having incomes In Fl spect to all sources of incomeI That the general character of the tax. and { describe it aa a real estnte tax is as muc