The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-03-08
FIGHTING THE INCOME TAX.
ARG GUAEENTS WERE MADE BEFORE
 THE SUPREME COURT.

ton that the income tax cases would be argued in the supreme court of the United States to-day was responsible for the attendance of an unusully large number of the spectators desiring to hear the eminent counsel engaged. 1t was well toward the close of the days session before the court called the cases. Beside the views of the strik- ing array of counsel engaged in the case there was also furnished to the court a remarkable amount and variety of literature.
 This included the following: Briefs on behalf of appellants in the New York cases-CharIes H. Pollock and Lewis Hyde, signed by J. H. Choate, Clarence A. Seward, B. H. Bristoy, w. D. Guth- rie, David Wilcox and Charles Steel; additional brief on the question of direct tax by Seward Guthrie, Mora wetz and Steele, solicitors for complain ants, and Joseph H. Choate and Charles F. Southmayd, 4counsel, extracts from the evidence proving the historic facts,' from the general literature and from the authorities bearing upon the question whether the words direct tax" and "direct taxes" as used in the federal constitution embrace tax on incomes or are limited to tax on land only"; "the teachings of political economists defining direct and indirect taxes, by Max West, A. M., Ph. D., of the University of Chicago, which paper contained probably one hundred defini- tions by authorities as far back as 1744; copies of the income tax laws of 1861 to 1894; and a brief by Shellabarger and Wilson, solicitors, and George F. Ed munds, counsel for John G. Moore, plain tiff, in the District of Columbia suit for an injunction against Commissioner of Internal Revenue Miller.
 The foregoing were prepared on be- half of the opponents of the tax. For the government and for the parties to the litigation who advocate the tax were the following:
 Argument for the New York Loan and Trust Co. by Herbert B. Turner, counsel; brief for the United States by Attorney General Olney and Assistant Attorney General Whitney, with citations of the scope and effect of federal exercises.
 Briefs for the Continental Trust com pany by J. c. Carter and W. c. Oliver and by William Jay and F'lamen B. Chandler, with an additional brief by Carter and Gulliver.
 Brief by Attorney General Olney.
 When MT Guthrie began the argu- ment there were present in court Attor- ney General Olney, Assistant Attorney General Whitney Hon. J. c. Carter and w. c. Gulliver, representing the govern ment and those who upheld the law; Hon. Joseph H. Choate, ex-Senator Ed munds, Hon. J. w. Wilson, Clarence A. Seward, David Wilcox and Charles Steele, representing those opposed to the law; R. T. Hough, Solicitor of Inter- nal Revenue McMillan, and ex-Repre- sentative Springer of Illinois, whose cons test with the government years ago over the law of 1868 resulted in a decla- | ration by the supreme court of the | United States that an income tax was not direct tax. Tn that the question raised was as to uniformity. MT. Guth- | rie appeared especially for appellant Lewis H. Hyde, a stockholder in the | Farmers Loan and Trust company of | New York. He confined himself to a | presentation Of the contention that the | law was unconstitutional because of it's | inequality, lack of uniformity and num- erous illegal exceptions.
 The right and power of congress to tax incomes from investments in muni- cipal bonds was expressly denied by MT. Guthrie. The right of the stock holders of corporation, the manage ment of which proposed voluntarily to pay the tax to seek relief by an injunc-
  tabIished in the case of Dodge versus Walsey as Howard) and the principles laid down in that case had been affirm ed by thes upreme court of the United States.
 MT. Guthrie proceeded at length to show that the law made illegal excep- tions and Illustrating this stated that a mutual insurance company in New York with a surplus of $204 900, 900 would be exempt from a tax of S2OO, ,OOO a year, which their principal rival in the same business, conducting it for the same purpose but operating it as a stock concern must pay. The excep- tion of these mutual and other semi or wholly benevolent insurance insti- banks, building associ- ations and the like--it was contended
 
 and rendered the law null and void The attorney general in his brief said MT. Guthrie had argued: Similar dis criminations and exemptions have al- ways been familiar in federal legisla- tion, never before have been question and have the force of practical con stitution. They have been familiar in state legislation, have been questioned and in the absence of peculiar restric- tions in state constitutions have been always sustained"
 "We challenge the correctness of that statement" MT. Guthrie added. "We have not been able to find single such exception or discrimination in any of the previous income tax laws, copies l of which have been furnished the I court"
 "Upon what constitutional inhibition do you base your argument?" inquired t Justice Harlan. "Upon the lack of uniformity, re- l quired by the first section of article l s and the fifth amendment to the con- I stitution," answered MT. Guthrie. Further discussing this point of in- l equality and discrimination MT. Guthrie r asked the court to consider the situa- t