Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-03-14
INCOME TAX ARGUMENT
de BY cHoArE DREW A LARGE
AUDIENCE.
: ArIancin Case is Receiving the
lttention OF the state Department
'ud the spanish siinister-No News
4 the ISicisnpoo Trouble.
wAsH1NGroN. March -.

HE WASHINGTON, hRtch TO-
rhe corridors about the supreme
.art room were crowded today as the
iridors about the senate and house
.mbers are at times when it is under
,od that something unusual is hkely
'aoccur. The seats inside and outside
bar and all the available standing
I'M was occupied long before inc
1rt came In at noon and many VINO
re unable to gain admission re-
ined standing In the corridors Tor
hrs, hoping that ultimately place
xht be made for them.
5A large majority OF those inside re-
ned their places. however, until MT
oate had concluded his argument
last of the illustrious series in the
ONE tax cases. There was no pre-
binary business before the court ana
+ Choate began his address promptly
,on the opening OF the days session.
n argument was largely technical ana
3al and he soon betrayed the fact
!, N he had concluded his more general
marks yesterday and indicated that
IN his Introduction disposed or nc
suld henceforth coniine himself TO the
y Instruction OF the constitution ana inc
fascination OF the legal points, me
Nvitable Income Of all accumulated
operty. whether the rent OF land or
MS interest on land IA, he claimed,
atessarily the subject OF direct taxa
a and no other, He hoped 10 estap-
IN this fact and to further show that
IN tax was subject to the rule OF
portionment.
4 tVhatever else was not included In the
4 I'm direct tax" certainly real estate
Is included There had been univer-
N assent to this proposition and he
y iuld take this as the basis OF his irst
lhp. He controvertcd the proposition
4 at this idea was TO apply only To
Improved land, but contended
4 ii the application to all property
signated US real estate. lie followed
Is argument with the assertion that
NJ income from rent Of real estate IL
stlnguishuble from the tax ON real
ate itself and combattcd the position
the attorney general that the IN
me from rent after 1t enters the pock-
IS money and IS TO be considered as
ch. For that matter, any tax on
nd was In substance and effect a tax
H its rental.
Returning to the proposition OF the
3 torney-genernl that the proceeds
AAre not rentals but money In the
iaIeket, he declared It was u distinction
thout n difference and was a fiction
z hich had been stamped upon by the
Hurt with all It's might and quoted
eeedents TO sustain the position.
furthermore, he oOntrOverted the right
tax money in the pocket" as a
xation on personal property,
~ D.
lpn of the counsel for the appellants
at the word uniformity had only "a
Biographical meaning. He claimed
lnt the constitutional requirement OF
Uniformity meant to require equal and
thiform duties and taxes among Cltl-
& ms throughout the United States.
4 q, ChOnte contcnded that In exchange
q 8 the surrender by the states of power
collect duties. imposts and excuses,
10 general government had ncces-
yrily conceded the protection OF all
en- In their equity before the law and
Re rule Of uniformity must be OBJ
F. ryed, furthermore, he asserted that
Is rule had been observed without
: eeption by congress- In all tariff acts
lie declared that the construction put
the word uniformity" by tho oppo-
: ion counsc! was mostly OF n JOcoblu
ib or car OF Russia order, who
7 opposed 10 reign without restraint.
Such a construction would involve a
rect violation OF the constitution.
Mr.. Carter had declared that there
as no help for It II mistake had
en- made In the law, but Mr. Choate
Intended that the court was here for
II purpose OF providing help in such
sos. He thon referred TO what he
signated MS tho breaches OF the rule
VT uniformity made by the Income tax
nv, taking up first tho limitation of
re law to incomes IN excess or $1,000.
He declared the law 10 be a delibor-
4 strike on the part OF tho men who
voted for Il at the really rich.
No wonder he said. the president az
,ir ten days elaboration had refused
ri put his name to the bill. No wonder
e president and the secretary of the
aeasury refuse to endorse II.
EDO you asked Justice Harlan, "dls.
Vote the validity Of any cxemptiou?"
Air. Choate replied that he did not
II without explaining his reply took
2 the denial by the law OF any OK,
emption TO corporations and indlvid
y persons,
Iusiice Brown made an inquiry "a I,
policy OF the provision for domes