The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-03-08

should rot. he claimed. be taxed under .
former dc~isscr Of the supreme court Mr.
G9thrie asserted thar The prcrtssnu Of she
Law sxesupting ali Incomes under s.ess
would cause II 60 fan upon less than per
cent. Of the population OF the United
States. and the law was therefore class
legislation. He also showed that the tax
was rot uniform as regards corporations.
of which favored class was exempted.
zs. for instance. mutual insurance COM
panies ard building associations as well
as partnerships and religious and eensyo-
lent institutions
AS 10 the exemption Of churches. bensv-
oient concerns. etc, counsel would have
n5snlng TO say. as there was enough in
the Other CASES where the exemptions
were in the interest cf shareholders
though called by another name. 70 afford
suffefenr text for ali he could say
As illustrative Of the effect OF the opera
tion Of the law, he pointed out that an in
tftvsduai ovrrsing real estate bringing an
income of sSaso would pay $50 tax. while
a corporation would be required 10 pay
double that amount He also insfaneed
the case of a partnership OF i've persons
doing a business amounting 30 ssasss a
year, which would be required To pay no
tax. while corporation composed Of the
same persons would be compelled 80 nay
$3.50. In a word. he said, the appiscat ton
ershfp. The corporation was only an ag-
grega ton OF individuals. and In most cor
porasioRs a part at least CT the stock was
owned by the middle classes
Mr. Guthrie dweit upon the exemption
in the interest of the building and loan
associations, who were. he said. relieved
Of the annual payment Of Sssaesa. and
whose assets, IL had been asserted. We're
greater than the combination of capital of
all the national banks. All men would
have to do 30 eyaae the operations Of the
Law would be TO organize building and
loan associations. He argued that if the
present law should be held 10 be coHsti-
tutional congress could levy duty of Is
per cent on the imports of individuals.
and Of 30 per cent. on those of corpora
tons: or. III the sentiment In congress
should change, II could as easily reverse
the process and favor the corporations.
The principle would be the same.
Referring to the exemption made in the
interests of mutual Insurance companies,
he asserted that In the United States
there were 1870 OF such companies. and
OF these 800 were doing business on the
mutual plan: and he said that In New
York alone the wording of the act ex-
emptfng such companies would relieve a
thousand million dollars worth OF prop
erty from Its operation. The leading nsu-
tuai insurance company would secure tho'
benefit of an exemption on It's income
amounting TO s2aa.e0s per year. while its
rival. organized on the stock plan. would
have TO pay It's income tax. This adyan-
tage was given In the law. he asserted.
simply because some one wanted to favor
some particular mutual company.
Taking up the provision of TIE censti-
tuition requiring uniformity In lcvying
imports, taxes. etc. he refuted the argu-
menf that the word uniformity was meant
TO have only geographical application to
prevent discrimination In favor of one
state as against another. but contended 1t
was meant 10 secure equality OF taxation.
Mr.. Guthrie viii resume his argument at
II O'Clock tomorrow