Arizona republican., 1895-05-25
THE INCOME TAX.
About Other SINH
lar Laws
And How Will Their Results Be
Affected by the Late Supreme
Court Decision.

Mr.. R. Stuart returned yesterday
from Santa Fe, here he has been en-
gagged since February l., in the income
tax division OF the internal revenue de-
partment of the district of Arizona and
New Mexico. The late decision of the
supreme court gave Mr.. Stuart along
with several hundred other gentlemen
occasion to look for other employment.
Mr.. Stuart seeing there was no in
come tax to be collected, has been col
lecting some information on the subject
of income tax laws and arrives at the
conclusion that if the late law was not
valid none of it's predecessors were and
that the government is in debt for
eyrrv dollar it has collected under such
laws.
The first income tax law was
approved July l, 1862, fixing a
tax OF 8 percent on all incomes
of from $500 to $4,000 and a tax of 8
per cent On all incomes OF more than
$4,000. On March 8, 1865, the law
was amended, taxing all incomes OF
5000 to $4,000, 10 per cent. The law
was further amended on March Z, 1867,
taxing all incomes of more than 81 900,
5 per cent. Again on July IA, 1870, it
was amended fixing a tax of ~ per
cent on all incomes over $4,000. 1t ex-
PRED by Limitation on December 81,
1871. incidentally the department of
internal revenue was created ON July l,
1862, and Geo. S. Boutwell, OF Massa-
chusetts. became the first commits
sioner. Under the operation Of the law
inaugurated in 1892 and between its in
auguration and its expiration there
were collected taxes amounting to
nearly $500, 100000. Under the late
income tax law about $4,000 has been
collected.
The interesting position taken by
Mr.. Stuart, and supported by some legal
. opinion is that the late decision of the
supreme court not only nullifies the
late law and affects not the old law, be-
! cause a dead law cannot be affected &,
| but makes every man who paid a dollar
of income tax under that law sue
t cessful claimant against the govern
t ment for the return of a tax illegally
t wrested from him.
Judge Street was next seen by RE.
PUBLICAN reporter concerning this mat
Ter. Ne uSlu GIdt Guc HIsG pl6CS Lie
: late decision OF the supreme court did
l not affect the old law. though it did at
l tack and destroy that principle Of taxa
: ton. Even those who had paid tax
g under the late law could not claim its
E return unless payment had been made
: under protest. But those who had
e paid under the old law though they
s may have made legal murmur against
e payment, had been afforded no relief
: by the late decision. In short only Sc
v much of the income tax now held by
the government could be refunded haE
(. had been paid under protest and the
J.. late income tax law.
: Then also there is something else in
g the way OF claimants for the reimburs
e ment OF taxes under the old law, OF 81
e great Importance that it should have
e been mentioned first. That law lik'
: the late one was attacked on account o
: its illegal unconstltutionality. A su
= preme court pronounced it valid and i
e remained undisturbed and in force un
y til its peaceful death in 1871. 1t wa
: therefore SIS binding as a law could b.
g made.
a That decision 500 by the way wa
d made basis for the dissenting opinion
J. offered in the consideration of tn
<~F h. 1o{f l1r