The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-03-12
ARGUMENT ON INCOME TAX
LIVELY ROW BETWEEN THOSE
 INTERESTED IN THE CASE.

Court
 Washington, March 11.-In the in- come tax argument to-day, MT. Whit ney, assistant attorney general, said
 that whatever claims the appellants could make i'm this case, depended upon claim that the tax was not uniform, and that incomes under $4,000 were not taxed, and that such legislation was therefore class legislation, was admit ted, to certain extent, by Mr. Whit ney; but he denied that 1t was a vital point All legislation was aimed at certain classes and not particular in dividuals.
 The next point made by the appel lauts was that the tax had a minimum as against individuals and not as against corporations; the argument by l the attorneys for the appellants would | Mr. Whitney thought, destroy the ur!- formity of the tax. It had been es- | abolished that a legislature could se- lect any class of individuals for taxa tioE, It was never disputed during the war and afterward that the in come tax or anything similar to it was Unconstitutional, The exemptions in the pres sent law d ffered very little l from laws heretofore enacted and which l have stood unquestioncd In the stat ute of 1S70 the last of the income tax laws of the war period, many eXeInp- tions were made, and the law was Tot | therefor attacked.
 Ex-Senator Edmunds followed Mir whitney, He claimed that he Income .ax law was an unauthorized invasion of the rights of his client If his client had no right under the constitution | Q appeal to the court from that which had no authority in law he had TO business to be here But if the con | stitution had established a body with the authority and power to protect | him from the tyranny, then he had l right to come here and seek relief, to | ascertain whether the law recently l eracted was ccnstituticaal.s Paren- | medically MT Edmunds said it was | useless to Inquire of the body thot enacted that law--"a body" he said
 'of respectable gentlemen, who have | since disappeared from office off the | face of the political earth.' Mir. Ed munds also said that it might not be amiss to investigate into the question of how many of the gentlemen who voted to enact that law intended to or would pay the alleged tax they inl- pose6 upon others. That hoveYer, was another branch of the case and not before the court. He simply referred to it as an old barrfster had orce re- marked, not as an authority but to adorn his discourse.
 MT, Edmunds asked the court not only to go back and apply the precedents. but also to consider all the rules !n connection with this case. The action of congress in denying the right of ap- peal under the income tax, he said | was unusual and tyrannical, and 1t was the duty of this court to give the pro- lection from this tyranny that congress had denied
 Mir Edmunds paid much attention to | the Springer case, which grew out of the | income tax law, and suggested that a | court was sometimes justified in meting | out justice to overrule prevailing deci- | sions.
 
 there are gradual and infinite similar | departures From the laws marked out In the law books, dictionaries and | statutes incomes were, he asserted, in cluded within the class and designation of direct taxes. To include them with in the category of excises imposts and duties, said MT. Edmunds, would have accomplished the very mischief and wror.y which the founders of the coun- try desired to avoid, and so they used with perfect clearness that language to define their meaning Now after the lapse of century we are told that a congress finding itself short of funds may enact law that effects the same purpose which the fathers sought to avoid. Under this law, said Mir it is known and the n- telligent judicial knowledge Is bound to know that fact that fully 95 per cent of the revenue to be derived from this source was paid by less than per cent of the male voters of the United States And this they call equality; this they gall liberty
 MT. Edmunds made an interesting diversion here into the tariff question; the assertion that the con- tention which had been pressed here in this argument that the poor people, whoever they may pay the bulk of in- direct taxes, was entirely fallacious He said the fact and general observa- ion were that the importer paid large portion of the Income tax and the con- sumer did not pay at all. A congress % which he belonged, desirous, liko the one that just ceased its labors, to do for the benefit of the labor ng man and working with about the 'ame effect upon the public interests, { toted to reduce the duty on coffee from [ to ? 1-2 cents a pound, thereby mak- c ng his breakfast that much sweeter 6 lnd cheaper. As soon as that became lnoWn the American minister to Bra il, whence seVen-eighths of the coffee consumed in the United States is ex- ported, sent telegram to the state de- ,artment saying that the price of cof- c ee in that market had advanced 21-2 r ents a pound. The result was that he consumer came to settle with the a ealer he paid no less for his coffee, F ut the treasury was deprived of seven s millions of dollars. Justice Harlan f sked counsel if he had a definition of V he difference between direct and indi d ect taxes. n
 I 1N