The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-03-13
ARGUING THE INCOME TAX.
NO TIRE SET BY THE COURT IN
 WHICH DEBATE WE'LL END.

and Choato Address the court au Greht
 Length and Give Good Arguments fo.
 and Against the Bill.
 Washington, March 12-The an
 nouncement that Attorney General Ol-
 ney, Hon. James c. Carter and Hon.
 Joseph H. Choate of New York would l address the supreme court upon the | income tax law attracted large at-
 tendance at the session of the supreme
 court of the United States today
 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 hearing had been extended
 by the court.
 Attorney General Olney devoted his
 argument on the part of the United
 States to the constitutional questions
 which the several plaintiffs alleged to
 be involved i'm the cases presented.
 Many of the objections raised seemed
 to him to be simply perfunctory taken
 pro forma, and by way of precaution.
 No time, he thought. need be expended
 in discussing the averments that the
 income tax law was an evasion of vest
 ed rights and took property without
 due process of law. These propositions
 were simply generalities.
 Turning to another question he said
 suppose it to be true that the income
 tax law undertook to ascertain the in- comes of citizens by methods which
 were not only disagreeable, but were infringements of personal rights. The consequence would be not that the law was void, but that the hotly de- nounced inquisitorlal methods could not be resorted to. Similar consider attons would apply to the objection that the law was to be pronounced void because taxing the agencies and instrumentalities of the governments of the several states. It had not yet been definitely adjudicated and 1t was by no means to be admitted that the income of state and municipal securi- LASo NClN iAOl ldhdblC BJ lHG NItltQ States when assessed as part of the total income of the owners under law assessing income generally and not discriminating between such securi- ties and others of the like character. But, suppose the contrary was the re- suit, that would not prove that the law was bad in toto. but that 1t was bpd only as to the income of state and muni- 'cipal securities.
 The attorney general continued:
 If am right in these observations, the constitutional contention of the plaintiffs sinners down to two points One is that an income tax is direct tax and must be imposed according to the rule of apportionment, and the oth- CT is based upon the alleged violation | of the constitution with regard to uni | formity. l do not stop to discuss the l question what the constitutional rule of | apportionment is. I do not think | ought to delay the court for any con- siderable time with the question wheth- | CT an income tax is direct or indirect. | an income tax is what the con | describes as direct tax" is | a question as completely concluded by | adjudications as any question | can be. It is not a direct tax within the of the constitution unless five judgments of this court have all been erroneous.
 The attorney general denied that any land tax was aimed at or attempted by | the statute-there was no lien on land Tor payment. The whole scope and ten or of the statute showed the contempla- +ad ctih Af tax tr In ,aI | and nothing else. Discussing he meaning of the word uniform" as applied to the collection of imposts, ex- ,ises, etc, he declared that the word lad a territorial application, and no other. He said:
 A federal tax, which is not a poll tax Tor a tax on land, must be the same n all parts of the country. It cannot 1e one thing in Maine and another hing in Florida. The law providing or such a tax must be like bank 'uptcy law or a naturalization law. { must have the same operations every where, wholly irrespective of state ines.
 The attorney general said that it was luite beside the issue to argue in this IT any other case that congress had what public policy required. )n that point congress was the sole and nal authority and it's decision once nore controlled every other department f the government No exemption was made by the statute in favor of a class hat was not based on some obvious he of public policy and that class eing established, one uniform rule was pplicable to it's members. It is mani est that in this distinction between l { eople with incomes over $4,000 and hose with incomes under that amount ongress was proceeding upon definite jews of public policy and was aiming t accomplishing great public object, was seeking to adjust the load of tax tion to the shoulders of the community the manner that would make it most asiIy borne and most lightly felt. So ith business corporations. Their net lcomes were taxed at the standard z ate of per cent, but undiminished y the standard deduction of $4000. I he result might be that man in bus less as a member of corporation was | lxable at a little higher rate than ( lan in the same business by himself t as a co-partner. | u was common knowledge that cor | 1rations are so successful an agency i ,r the amount of business and the t