The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-03-13
ARGUMENT FOR INCOME TRX
Attorney General oIney Speaks for
the Government.
THE TAX CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Question, He Claims, is Simply
One of Collection, as the Consti-
tutionaliiy is Without Perad-
venture. Is the Manner of
Collecting InquisitoriaI2
by Southern Associated Press.


nouncement that Attorney General
Olney, Hon. James G. Carter and Hon.
Jos. ii. Choate, of New York, would
address the Supreme Court upon the
income tax law. attracted on attend
ance upon the session of tho Supreme
Court of the United States to- DAY that
far exceeded the capacity of the accom-
modations OF the chamber.
Before Attorney General Olney, who
was the first speaker, entered upon his
argument, Chief Justice Fuller notified
him that he might proceed without re-
gard to any limitation of time, as the
period for argument had been extended
by the court.
The Attorney General devoted his
argument on the part of the United
States to the constitutional question
winch the several plaintiffs alleged to
be involved in tho cases presented.
Many OF the objections raised seemed
to him to be simply perfunctory, taken
prolitimn aud by way OF precautIon.
Tho propositions were geueralities, and
II there WAS anything in them it wns
because they comprehend others which
were the only real subjects OF profitable
discussion.
Suppose 1T to be true TINT the income
tax law undertook to ascertain the in.
comes OF citizens by methods which
were not only disagreeable, but were
lnfrinGoments of personal rights. The
consequence would be, not that the
law was void, but TINT the hotly de
nounced inquisitorinl methods could
not be resorted to. Similar consIuera-
tIons would apply to the objection that
the law was to be pronounced void,
70 rnr tl,,.o
| mentnlilles of the governments of the
several States. 1t had not vet been
definitely adiudicated aud If by no
means to be admitted, that the income
OF State and municipal securities wns
not taxable by the United States when
| assessed as part oil the total income of
the owners uuder a law assessing in.
come generally and not discriminating
between such securities aud others OF
| like character. But suppose the con-
trnry. The result would be not to
hnd that the law was bad in toto, but
that 1t was bnG only AS to the income
OF State and municipal securities.
The Attorney General said:
I'll l am right in these observations
the constitutional contention OF the
plaintiffs SINNERS down to two points,
One ls that Rn Income tax is direct
tax aud must be imposed according to
! the rule OF apportionment, and the
| other is based upon the alleged viola
| tion OF the constitution with regard to
| uniformity. ] do not stop TO discusss
the question what the constitutional
rule of apportionment is. | do
net think L ought to delay the
court for any considerable time with
the constitutional question. whether the
income tax is direct or indirect, whether
an income tax is what the Constitution
describes as n direct" tax is a ones
tion ns completely conceded by repeat
Ell auJudications AS any question can
be. 1t is not a direct tax within the
meaning of the Constitution unless five
concnrrinS Judgments OF this court
have, been erroneous"
Discussing the meaning OF the word
'nnlform" as applied to the collection
of lmposts, eXcises, etc, he declared
that the WORD had territorial applica
ton and no other. "A Federal tax.
he SAID, (which is not poll nor a
tax on land, must . be tho same in xii
parts OF the country. 1t cannot he
one thing Ia Maine aud another thing
III Florida. The law providing for
such II tay must be like Il baukrnptcv
law or naturalization law. 1t must
have the same operation for every
where, wholly irrespective Of State
lines"