The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-05-08
The INCOME TAX ARGUMENT.
Attorney General 0lney and NJ. Whitney
Conclude and Mr. Choate Begins.
THE LATTER IHDULGES In SARCASM.
He Argues Against the Dogma of the
sacrsdpess ofPreeedents--Tbe Alto orney.
Generals Views ss to When Rents
Become Taxable as Money-The
other Points at Issue.

days proceedings OF tne redISuiutht Oi
the income-tax cases began III the Su-
prtme Court OF the United States AZ noon
dnced sU1y Audience % enc pofpectafors' lawyers as
well as the puDlic In geqerai. among ,,ns
the spectators who attracted attention
was Colonel William jay, one OF the conn-
sci for the opponents OF the law, grand
son of Chief Justice Jay VINO was d
member Of the Court when the first deci-
sion of the Court was made OH the SUP,
ject of direct taxes In the celeDrateu
Hylton case of 179j although he did not
take part In the decision.
Assistant Attorney-Generai whitney re-
sumed his argument in support OF the
ccnstitutionality Of the law unoer consiue-
ration.
settled definition OF the word duty in
the Jurisprudence Of this country, anu
that the court was left 10 the dehniuoh
given the term in the decisions In pre-
vious cases, for guidance in determining
Recurring then to the term direct taxes.
Mr.. whitney said that the 'resea,rcn ',i'a.
that until IT had found a place ID n, Ine
American Constitution 1t had meyer peen
known or recognized as legal Term. Term, 80
Proceeding to discuss the ucclslohs Oh
the court, Mr.. Whitney SAID
THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DEcIsIs.
Great weight should be given 10 cyety ,eIy
principle clearly and deliberately i9ao
| down by the court although not necessa-
riIv involved in the decision. The doc
trine Of stare decisis should nave lts No
tremest extension in cases involving LII lit
funda mental principle OF taxauons. ihe
necessity for the application or tne % uoS-
trine was never greater than III thS DE-
ent case Ii would be a natiohaf uisadSI s.dIer
sf Congress- could not in times OF sudden
stress rely implicitly, not only Oh d VA
Dreciee ruling. but on the principles anu anu
definitions deliberately enunclared Dy 'iii'
court. u,,.. continued
"whether In times fwar or times "a "a
| commercial crises. must be extehsiise st anr
complicated. and must iooh 20 limits of
ifs authority. If these rulings are lhuen- l',
mite and indicative of doubt. IL - n,,
fortune. But If this court, ps ,,horitative
manner, and with apparent lnLeI' i doanrs
lie forever a line Of disttnctioti' uc" taxes
constitutional powers reiaunS 'roie - on
then Congress must necessarily lSS d.
them and must necessarily iiain0
revenue legislation accordingly
TIE rxEMrTioSs.
n,soussine the exemptions in the Ia"
IN which exceptions have been taken pS
the narties i'm the litigation. MI: NhlineS
called attention TO tne iac' ,ors' arS' We're
We weio n,aced there by it's friends. but by
~ ~ dpnnonents. one was suggested py
senator Morrill, one by Senator, |u,,on,, ,.n,,
aro,,nds anu OF public policy and phiian-
grouhus VI vas argued that 10 tax
incomes from savings banks s Nouiu .o,,,r- ,Srru
| 10 discourage habits OF tnriis o,.e an az The
nation. and In relieving some OF nnrs tne
co~oneratiy institutions OF the TAX olnets
with great accumulations OF money asn ds,N
Of me II had also escaped thc . Dut ,se- -
posed upon, ~ othsTs de,ati MT nu' whitney called
the attention of the court 10 the Ioh.
line OF decisions upholding Inc pomVi -
Congress to make exemptions li kenettat. tan
In concluding. he appealed 10 the yn55
,,cns 70 consider the whole case inciua-
sno the questions Of tax on rents, a5 q.
II had never been before them. anu II
so doing they gave que ,heps. Te,s"' was no
dn,,ht dn In his mind what the judgment
| of the court would be-
ArronvrY-GENERAL oLNEY.
Mr. Whitney finished at 2:@ O'clock,
and was followed by Attorney-Gen
| OIney who closed the case ior the Wv
| ernment in support of the law
After recapitulating the arguments ad-
| vanc.d on behalf OF the United States
! AT The former hearing he again con-
| tended that Judged py me ransu"s ,sx ~
| when was necessarily TO be deemed
tax real estate -, -, AL.
The opinion of the court, ne sala nfall
| with the case as If rents were the only
| subject of the incOme-tax law-as II an
the rest of the statute were oUittcn
! and If simply provided for assessing
| landowners according to their rents
That was not, he submitted, the true
vav of looking at the matter. But, sup
| rose IL TO be adopted, what 'ollowsE we
| then have a statute dediihe Win iatnu
| lords as a ciass-taxing them because Oh
! thsir vocation of landlord, and 'ncaSur-
| ire the tax by rents actually received;
! Such a tax was perfectly legitimate and
nerfectly familiar There was not call
! ing or pursuit in lis> -ch was nov SUI, SUI
| pect TO It at the will OF the Legisld1ure.
| II had been actually applied 70 almost
| every conceivable occ upatio1 or employ
ment. from that OF the reverend clergy
man TO that of the travelling TINKER
NOT A TAX on PROPERTY.
Moreover II was not. legally speaking.
tax on property OF any sor,, ,Itsl, real OF OF
EMPLOYMENT itself, 80 that the merchant
who paid a tax as merchsnt had no legai
ground OF complaint on the score ot
double taxation, beca use ne wa7 aiso e a',-
ouired 10 pay tax on his stock IN trade.
tvnn n fhis statute We're 10 be con.
structed just as II all there was 10 IL
WAS a simple provision Tor TAX upoil
landlords, measured ny ren,s REM. M reoss'sr, b,,
tax which was not necessarily a f|t!
estate tax, nor property TAX OF any sor''
hut which could be ana Snonlu De sus-
| tained as tax In respect or particular
occupation He contended that TO call
tha income tax tax on lands was as
N uch a misnomer as TO call II bond taS
or "A stock TAX or tax Onmercha'"i'e' w.
IL was an assessment upon the Taxpayer
on account of his money-spendfng power
as shown by his revenue for the year rre-
ceding the assessment:
What is legally and theoretical posi-,
Bile is one thing-what Is actually a"u
practically possible Is another.
How does this new doctrine. that per-
eonalty. together with all incomes, must
be taxed by the rule or apporronment-
how does this new doctrine work in prac-
tice and what is its operation as De-
tween individual taxpayers?
WHY is II conceded on all hands tnat
II wifi cause the most startling inequal-
jties-makng cne man in one part OF
the Union pay FIVE or six times as mcch
as another man pays In another part Oh
the Union. In respect OF the same amount
of property.
THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED.
In conclusion, he said:
IL is impossible, therefore, | SUBMIT 70
suffer ourselves 10 be beguiled WIN 'ne
fattering JUNCTION. that under TINS new
constitutional doctrine the Federal Gov
ernment does not sustain serious lmpais,
ment in one OF the most important a''ii
butes Of sovereignty Theoreucai.y, 10
taxing power may be unaffected. ffac'i-
caiiy II Is cut up by the roofs az ~ d
very large share OF the wealth. OF tne
country; as TO all income. ana as 10 ,ns
great mass OF all personal properly. such ~
a result. II II must be- Will. 4 nrihiy ~ -
iieve, when fully comprehehasa ~ ne
American people. be universally usppis-
have come 10 take pride In the United
=. 7,ts ,a,.roxept "A tive of in1i-