Elmore bulletin. [volume] (Rocky Bar, Idaho) 1889-1906, 1895-03-16
EDmunps ON THE INCOME TAX
tinted states supreme Court Justices
Asked Him Questions.


Asked Him Questions.
Washington. March l.--Assisiant At |
torney-General Whitney resumed his ar
gument In sustaining the income tax
law before the supreme court today.
MIR. Whitney addressed himself to the
question Of uniformity in taxation. He
contended that the limit OF $1,000 fixed
by law was not class legislation. II a
subsequent congress had sought to
amend the law by including those not
previously exempted by the $4,000 limit.
this amendment would no doubt be class
legislation, as II would apply 10 dis
tinct class. Mr.. Whitney reviewed pri-
or decisions In insurance and other
cases. showing that the Interpretation
OF this court on class legislation would
not apply to the income tax. Concern
Ing the exemptions allowed to certain
corporations, the assistant attorney
general said IL was most surprising that
this was set up as a ground for inyali-
dating the tax. He read from numerous
federal tax laws showing repeated ex-
empiions In the cases Of art societies
and many other corporations. Mr..
Whitney said that the supreme court
had already over-ruled the contention
that the taxation OF land values and
rentals as made by the income tax was
invalid. The state taxes were against
the land and not against the individual.
but the income tax was not against the
land but against the total income Of the
Individual. As this income came In
part from land. II was merely an Incl
dent The income tax In In no sense "A
land tax. IL In not on gross income
from land and other sources. but on
the net income.
Mr.. Whitney took up the claim that
the federal government can not tax
municipal and local securities held by
individuals. as, for instance. bonds is
sued by New York city. He said II had
been decided In the case OF Bonapnrte
against the state Of Maryland. that "a
state could tax bonds OF the city or
state OF New York. IL the state could
exercise fhis power. why could not the
federal government do the same7
Mr.. Whitney concluded ut 1:sO and
was followed by Mr.. Edmunds. counsel.
against the law. Mr.. Edmunds read
from the constitution as to the protec-
ton OF private rights. These provI-
slons. he said. were trite. and yet IL
seemed necessary In these days with
such legislation before ns. TO recall these
| constitutional buiwarks against an in
vasion Of private rights In q question
OF this gravity. he would feel disposed
10 ask the court not only 10 pursue pre-
cedents and follow them in this matter.
but go back and rule upon the entire
subject 80 vital 10 sustaining private
rights. The worst tyranny OF history
was that which came In the gulse of re-
lief. He first spoke Of the action OF
congress I'm endeavoring TO take away
from the courta the right 70 appeal for
protection as was the case In the income
! tax law. He did not think the time had
come when there should be mo longer an
appeal 10 the courts from the acts Of
congress. IL was hey ond the function
OF congress 10 pass an act that would
strip the courts OF their righta. and this
was just a. true 10 the rights Of citi-
zens as 90 those OF the courts.
He referred 10 the provision that the
taxpayer was required TO make his re-
turns 10 deputy collectors He said
the deputy was not recognized as Ie-
climate officer under the constitution.
II do not. however, he said. mean 10
dwell on that, but merely refer 10 II In
passing as one or the points of vice.
which bioomed In the garden Of the last
congress- re AAtttElEWA fnAMS UAHtr
features or the law providing tor the
collection Of taxes. pointed out that It
left no room for resort or appeal 10 the
courts. but left 10 revenue officers the
adjustment, who. ne said. we're not
only final judges. but inauisltors as well
Mr. Edmunds then reviewed the case
heretofore decided. which has been re-
ferred 10 by previous argument. and
AKsss41Mwxed tha mnansN 4nxnlvnd n 4 tsss.afh
He was referring to the Hilton case.
when Chief Justice Fuller called his
attention 10 the fact that Hilton had an
unusual number Of carriages. Us. as he
remembers. Unusual Ia nnmbere.-
Mr.. Edmunds asserted. but he pos
seaaed them as many persons possess
virtue and grace" He asked the court
TO overrnle Its former decision on the
income tax. ~ given I'M th~ Springer
case. lie argued that the past eonwress
had o&erstsppsd the limits OF the con-