The Portland daily press., 1895-01-11
To Test the Constitutionality Of the
Income Tax.
APPROPRIATION FOR IMPROVE
MENTs In THE KENNEBEC RIVER.
The Cherokee Indians Wish To Be Let
Senate-Importing an italian Colony
The Indian Appropriation Bill-Other
Happenings of Interest.

The Indian Appropriation Bill-Other
Happenings of Interest.
Washington, January lO.-The Senate
carried the urgent deficiency bill. An
amendment inserting 100000 for the con-
tinung of the improvement of the harbor
of Galveston, Texas was agreed to. with
the insertion of the words sunder existing
contract The bill having been finished
except as TO the income tax. Mr..
Hill of New York, offered an amendment.
the one q which Mr.. Quay of Pennsylvania,
gave notice. that nothing in any law to the
contrary shall preclude any court of the
United States having jurisdiction of
the parties from considering and dete1min-
ing as to the constitutionality or validity of
the income tax.
Mr.. Quay referred to section
1924 of the Revised Statutes which
provides that. no suit for the pur-
pose of restraining the assessment
or collection of taxes shall be brought in
any court. THAT is for restraining suits to
set aside the assessment or collection of
taxes not for the constitutionality of any
ac;," said Mr.. Cockrell: mo government
could permit injunotions to be granted
dSaIusI buo COllectiOu OI IaNeS.
Mr.. Hill said there were several ways
test the constitutionality of the statute
imposing the tax. OLe would be where
csicers were proceeding to make assessment
or collection; to restrai it before the tax
was collected by suit for permanent in
junction. But for the statute referred to
any person liable to pay the income tax
could bring suit for permanent injunction.
The other method was to wait untilsthe tax
was collected and then bring suit. The
easiest test, the simplest method of raising
the question involved in the income tax
would be by preliminary suit of injunc-
tion, which oouldsbe heard Immediately. ap-
pealed by either side and d5&couid oe speedily
heard and decided by theSupreme court of
the United STATES. The object of the amend
lnent was only to repeal thessection for the
purpose of this particular proceeding. it
was exceptional legislation. That there was
well founded judgment on the part of the
best legal talent in this country that the
income tax was unconstitutional, in whole
or in part, could not be denied. The best
lawye yers in the land expressed their opinion
upon it and advised clients that the tax was
to be resisted ID the great states which were
to pay it. If this appropriation is to be
made the amendment simply contemplated
the abrogation of this particular income
tax, so any litigant liable to pay it might
proceed now, without waiting for property
to be seized and without waiting for formal
assessment.
Mr. Peffer, Populist of Kansas. moved to
lay Mr.. Hills amendmentson the table.
Mr.. Cockrel asked thatsMr. PETER with
draw his motion.
Mr.. PETERS motion was srejeoted without
a division, and Mr. fill withdrew his
amendment tempoFarilysto let the consider
alton of the bill be continued. An amend
ment appropriating S2cO00O for a new
building for the appraisers warehouse in
New York, and extending the limit of the
cost million dollars, was offered by Mr..
Squire. Republican of Washington on the
part of the committee on public buildings
and grounds. The amendment was ruled
out ON point of order.
Mr.. Hill again offered the amendment and
the bill went over.
Mr.. Quay gave notice of three amend
ments to the bill. First, to insert a pro-
vision rerealing the income tax; second, to
insert the entire Mckinley act; third, to in
sert d wool tax.
The Nicaragua Canal bill was taken up.
and Mr.. Caffrey, Democrat of Louisiana,
addressed the Senate. He disclaimed any
b ostility to the scheme of connecting the
Atlantic and Pacific oceans by waterway,
but he opposed the means proposed Tin the
pending bill. Without finishing his speech,
Mr. Caffrey yielded the floor, and the SEN
ate, after N executive session adjou1n ned.