New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-07
srcs good government and honest acm'nistra-
tiou
THE INCOME TAI


The 1ImorS that the Supreme Court has de-
cidcd : 10 >. that the income tax Is uhcons'l'u
ti0nal are circulated with great confidence AZ
Washington and have some color of approval
in the anxious official investigation Of revenues
of MI kinds There is nothing inirnsically I'M
reasonable in thc statement which is made by
some journals. that the President WAS priVa''!
informed by one or more of the JUSTICES. III or'er
that the Administration might nav" oppor'ui'i'!
to consider whether anything Ought I" De done
before the formal decision could he rendered
II is stated that the same course was pursued
when the Legal Tender act was declared uncoh-
stI,utjonal The fact that the decision mnst Scr-
mlsly affect the course Of public business was
sutlicicn, reason for giving private indication
of its tenor BIT ii cannot yet he ascertaincd
,t Washington that the statement has any sub
s,ana foundation.
Al first glance il wplld seem improhapie 'lG''
any such intimation if coniidcntially made by
any member of the court. would leak out N'l'h'i
tho Justices nor the President. it may he as
sumnd would whisper the matter. But III tue
nature of things the President, II he h''u ~
ccivcd any such inlimation. must nave CONSUME"
his Secretary of the Treasury. ana w"ni" h''"
rally have asked for some Information as 10 me
state of the revenues and expenditures ana 10
one can suppose that the natural Inference from
su,h inouirics could he entirely avoided. even II
thr reasons for them were not communicated L"
.uhordinatcs Ir the absence Of the definite in
formation which. under President Clcvclands
Hawaiian policy. is frequently refused 10 Inv
public. or subbornly denied until II Is 10" ia'e
10 save the honor Of the Administration II huS'
Inc assumed that the President Is yet in the dark'
* in, country is regarding the decision "t III"
court
Still i, is not a waste of time to consider IT'S
nrobahc consequences. Should divided court
leave the law in force. ia" question oi lis '"S''
tu,ionality would remain open rs lnrch ~ p'i"r''
and the prospect that the membership oi III"
court may change before any ease can r'I'h
final action will undoubtedly have weight Win
many 70 resist the payment % the tan In
nloin truth rs NO other tax i so hard To coller'
os an income tax. even when il is entirely s'is
tanned bv The courts AMI by public opinion. such
, fax musi in the nature of things. be extremely
unreliable 1S source If revenue when the high
est court in ;hc land is divided ~ to il ronsu-
tutionality.
An adverse decision would not be- in all re
..ncclS unfortunate. even with regard I" inc r'N'
nu. alone II i plain enough already tha' me
now rry"nur law does not meet expectations
and il WAS not supposed from III" starr mat i
would Weld enough without The fax ON incomes
vb.. ia, lin. Of more than third in the pric" ~
snror. As is shown 10y The Bureau "i S'a'lN'i'S
in Il report printed yesterday. would cu' on a"o"'
S1I unOUuO Of The rrvcilu" expected from NM
source. sine" ihc new duties are altogether nd
v,l,ra,u Meanwhile. III" creation OF now dept
;rvolvin" additional interest payments al S''''"
0oO yearly. and The decrease IN consumption VI
many rovcnuchcarng articles. might III IN! '"S"
reduce The revenues below ofNcihi 'Np'V'a''"nS'
II the Administration is sufficiently warned 7"
b. induced 10 confront III" danger before -
too late. II may be- we'll for the country ana Tor