The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1895-05-08

day of the rehearing in the income tax
case to day in the Supreme Court Sof
the United States began with Assistant
Acknowledgement Whitney in the midst
OF argument for reversal orshe form
opinion OF the court on the question OF
validity OF q federal tax on income de,
rived from rents. All the seats DIN the
bench were again occupied to-daytas on
yesterday and the visitors crowded the
the limited space of the courtroom IS
they have dono every day that tho in.
come has been before the court. though
not to as great extent as on yesterday
Whitney began by explaining that his
historical brief which he had promised
yesterday had not reached him fromlthe
printer, and said that he had alreedy
gone almost as far into the question: as
he should in quoting English precedehts
orally and in giving the facts as to the
various words and phrases used in tax.
alton. He said his statement OF facts
would be his principal argument and he\
believed that In case OF the character,
OF the income cases now under argu-
ment the facts were the best argument
that could be made. He claimed that
the weight of the evidence was to the
following effac..
First-The word duty" had legal
definition. The phrase "direct tax"
had none, but was borrowed from politi.
cal economy.
Second-A specific personal property
tax, specific real property tax, and
specific income tax were each duty
within the meaning Of the constitution.
a general tax on all personal property
at valuation was not q duty, impost or
excise at all, nor was IL direct tax
in political economy.
Third-A specific real property tax
would probably have been considered to
be an indirect tax.
Foursh-A general income tax, prop
erly so-called, was unknown at she time
OF the constitution, but was duty
within its meaning
Fifth-A specific personal property
or specific income tax was duty and
not direct tag.
After discussion of the meaning
OF the phrase direct taxes" du ling
which he quoted numerous authorities,
MIR. Whitney proceeded to argue at
great length to show that the present
income tax Is not tax imposed upon
land nor upon rents, because they are
derived from land, but pom property of
all kinds accrued to the owner wishin
the the year Irrespective of It's source.
On the question of uniformity, he
said he had nothing to offer that had
not been given in the original hearing,
but he repeated some Of these for the
purpose as he said, of setting the oppos-
Ing side right as to the position OF the
government. Whitney finished speak,
Ing at $3.50 p. m. with very brief pero.
ration and Attorney General Olney
addressed the court.
Mr.. Oiney was interrupted only once,
during the presentation Of his views by
the bench, and that was by Mr.. Justice
Brown while the Attorney.General WIS
engaged in making his argument for tue
validity of the tax on rentals. The
justice asked him If his argument would
not apply to municipal bonds as we'll as
to rentals, and Mr.. Olney said 1t would,
and he accepted "a correct an interpre-
tation put upon his meaning by the
chief justice that he would include
everything on which an income was
received after 1t was In hand. Mr. Olney
mediately followed by Mr.. Choate, who
began the concluding arguments for the
appellants in the case.
Why is It, Mr.. Choate asked, that ohe
country is holding its breash for the
decision on che second hearing of this
case? Why are the people from one
end OF the country so eager to hear She
definite and ilet us hope, the final verdict
in the case? Certainly this WAS not be-
cause the people objected to paying the
paltry per cent. tax on incomes, for
the brief period OF Eve years. That
could not be the reason. This small
sum was nothing to what had been paid
In times past. Once when the country
was in peril the people had gladly paid
10 per cent. and II they had been called
upon to do 30 would just as cheerfully
have sent the other 80 per cent. after it,
This was not the cause Of the eager
interest but the real reason was found
In the fact that the entire country was
deeply concerned to know whether the
safeguards which had been go dearly
purchased by our fathers were to be
preserved so the present and fu ture gen.
erations, or to be trampled under foot
end denied to US. No wonder then ID
had been impossible for counsel or the
court to exaggerate the Importance of
the case.
Mr.. Choate then began his real argu-
ment, saying that as far as prac ticable
he would take up the ques ZION where l.
had been left by the former decision
He did not intend to surrender any ad.
vantage gained by the former decision,
and would regard 1t as settled and fixed
that incomes from municipal and State
bonds could not be taxed. Mr.. Choats
ridiculed the position of the govern
ment that tax on rents was not tax
on land. The decision already rendered
met this objection completely.
AcnOrdipcr m IA arouronpto % tAo ~,