The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-09
JUSTICES TAKE INTEREST.
THEY ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE
ARGUMENTS ON THE IN
COME TAX.
CORPORATION ATTORNEYS GIVE
THEIR REASONS WHY THE LAW
SHOULD NOT HOLD.

WASHINGTON, March SIN the Supreme
Court of the United States to-day Mr.. Guth-
rieresumed his argument for the appellants
in the income tax cases. He discussed
the bearing on the fifth amendment of the
constitution upon the cases and also re-
ferred to other constitutional provisions
Referring to the fifth constitutional amend
ment he said its provision that no person
should be deprived of life, liberty or prop
erty without due process of law had been
made for the protection or the people
against undue intrenchments. He con-
tended that any law which would impose a
tax on one class of people and not another
was in direct contradiction Of this amend
ment. He then returned to the discussion
of the question of taxation of corporations
in different way from which individuals
were taxed and said this point was of tran
scendant Importance in the case, reassert-
ing the property of any corporation was
the property of the individuals compos-
ing it.
He asserted that if Congress was per-
mitted to discriminate against corpora
tons as in the income law, it would
virtually have the power to nullify the
right OF States to create corporations. He
closed with an appeal for equality in taxa
ton.
Mr.. Seward followed, also speaking on
behalf of the appellants. He argued
against the constitutionalitv of the in
come tax. He devoted himself to the dis
cussion of the question as to whether the
tax was direct tax, and argued that if it
was it must, under provisions of the con-
stitution, be apportioned according to
population.
Mr.. Seward was discussing the question
of apportionment when the Chief Justice
interrupted him with the question: "Sup-
pose there should not be a sufficient
amount arising from the taxation of in
come of over $4,000 to meet the require
ments of a given State?''
at could be done, " replied Mr., Seward,
ION the basis of population, which is the
only thing to be apportioned to-
Assistant Acknowledgement Whitney
then presented the outlines of the Govern
ment's case. He explained the difference
between the two cases from New York and
the one arising in the district saying that
in the Moore case the effort has been to
secure an injunction against the collection
OF the tax, while in the other two cases the
euOrI ndu Deen maze 10 enlOln the pay
ment of the tax, the first being an action
against the Commissioner of Internal
revenue and the two others against trust
companies of which the appellants were
stockholders. Mr.. Moore, he said, rich
man who possessed an income exceeding
100000 year, did not claim to have any
property that could not be reached as a
lien for the collection of the tax.
Mr.. Moore had declared that this law
could not apply to an unconstitutional
tax, but the court had held that an un-
constitutional tax was still tax
Chow can Congress make law compell-
ing man to do thing which the consti-
tuition says he cannotY' asked Justice
Field. But at the suggestion of Chief US
tice Fuller that further discussion of the
point was unnecessary Mr.. Whitney did
not attempt to reply and passed on to the
Pollock case.
Mr.. Whitney had not concluded when
the court at O'Clock adjourned until Mon
day at 2 clock, when, after Mr. Whitney
concludes, ex-senator Edmunds will be
heard III the case, and he in turn will be
followed by Attorney-GeneralO lney.