The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-03-14
IBtFUKF THE SUHKEME JUUhI
THE CONSTITUTIONALlT1 VI
THE INCOME TAX BEING
ARGUED.
MIR. WHITNEY'S ARGUMENT SUS'
TANNING 1T.
Mr.. Edmunds Spoke Against the Tax
Olney Will Deliver His Argument
Today, With Messrs. Carter and
Choate to Follow.

Washington, March 1l.-Assistant At
tOrney General Whitney resumed his ar
gument in sustaining the income tax law
before the supreme court of the United
States today. Mr.. Whitney addressed
himself to the question of uniformity in
taxation in answer to the charges that the
income tax violated the principles of uni
formity. He cOntended that the limit of
$4,000 fixed by the law was not class legis-
lation. If subsequent congress had
sought to amend the law by including
those not previously exempted by the
$4,000 limit, this amount would no doubt
be class legislation, as it would apply to
distinct class.
Mr.. Whitney reviewed prior decisions
in insurance and other cases showing
that the Interpretation of this court on
class legislation would not apply to income
tax. Concerning the exemptions allowed
to certain corporations, the assistant at
tOrney general said it was most surpris-
ing that this was set up as a ground for
invalidating the tax. He read from num-
erOus federal tax laws, showing repeotpd
exemptions in the cases of art societies
ana many other corporations in the Dis
trict of Columbia, but building and loan
associations and saving companies were
frequently exempted by law, as they were
made up by a poor class of people. 70
whom the law gave special consideration,
During the war the law makers even ex,
empted the Mutual Insurance company
from the operation of general tax law.
lie said that the supreme court had nj
ready Overruled the contention that the
taxation of land values and rentals. as
made by the income tax, was invalid. The
state taxes were against the land and not
against the individual, but the income
tax was not against the land, but merely
against the total income of the individ-
ual That this income came in part from
land was merely an incident. The income
tax is in no sense land tax. 1t is not on
gross income.
Mr.. Whitney took up the claim that the
federal government cannot tax munich
pal and local securities held by individu-
ais, as for instance, bonds issued by New
York City. He said it had been decided
in the case of BOnaparte against the
state of Maryland that Il state could tax
bonds of the city or state of New York
II the state could exercise this power
why could not the federal government
do tie same?
Mr.. Whitney concluded at | 80 u. m.
He was followed by Mr.. Edmunds
counsel against the tax. He stated the
contention of his client against nm in.
vasion of his rights and an insnection of
his private books and papers. If there
was constitutional provision protecting
the individual it was the rock unon which
the contention against this tax was based
Mr.. Edmunds read from rhe ronst,tn-
ton as to the protection of private rights
These provisions. he said. were far The
protection of the rights, and VET if seemed
necessary in these DAYS, with such Ieris
lation before us, to recall these consti-
tutional bulwarks against an invasion of
private rights. In n question of this gray
ity he would feel disposed TO ask the
court not only to pursue precedents and
fit them to this subject matter. Int to
20 back and rule upon the entire subjects
so vital to sustaining private rights, The
worst tyranny of history was that which
came in the guse of a tax. He first smoke
of the action of congress in endeavorino
to take away from the courts the rights TO
appeal for protection as was the case in
the income law.
He did not think the time had come
when there should no longer be an an
peal to the courts from the acts of con
gress. 1t would be beyond the function
of the congress TO PASS an act which would
strip the courts of their rights. and This
was lust as true as to the rights of the