The evening world., 1895-05-07
O.NEY ARGUES
FOR THE TAX.
BE Claims the Validity Of
The Law Has Been Con.
clusively Settled
REAL QUESTION DEFINED.
Does the Law Create q Tax
Which Must Be Deemed q
Tax on Real Estate2"
SUPREME COURT IS CROWDED.
Second Day Of the Rehearing Began
with Mr. Whitney in the Midst
ei His Remarks.

WARRINGTON, May IL ne secpnu VA
Of the rehearing in the Income Tax
cases in the Supreme Court OF the
United States to-day began with As
sistant Attorney-General Whitney In
the midst Of his argument for rever-
sal Of the former opinion OF the Court
on the question OF the validity OF Il
Federal tax on incomes derived from
rents.
All the seats on the bench were again
occupied to-day as on yesterday. and
the visitors crowded the limited spac,
Of the courtroom, as they have done
every day that the income tax has been
before the Court. though not to as great
an extent as on yesterday.
Mr.. Whitney began by explaining that
his historical brief which he had prom
ised yesterday had not reached him
from the printer. and said that he had
already gone almost as far nito the
question as ne should In quoting En-
glish precedents orally and In giving
the facts as to the meaning of the
various words and phrases used In
taxation.
The opposition seemed to hold that II
question must go forward or back ac
cording to the Views of the occupants
Of the bench at the particular time
opposition had gained much applause
from the public on the supposition that
their motto was that a thing was never
DECIDED until 1t was decided rightly
He failed to see how Congress could
attempt to legislate IL II could not rely
upon the permanency of decisions once
made by the Supreme Court. Certainly
Ing to levy taxes that the definitions of
the Court were to he adhered to.
MIR. Whitney was followed, at 2.2O
O'Clock. by Attorney-General Oiney. who
"rhe present posture OF the case
conceive to be this. The contention OF
the Government at the former hearing
was that the validity OF general In
come Tax law could not now be drawn
in question, being conclusively settled by
repeated adjudications of this court. as
we'll a. by the uniform and long-con-
tinued practice of the other departments
OF the Government.
= "That contention has been sustained.
though by an equally divided court,
income Of the State and municipal Sc
curities and presents question upon
which ! do not ask to be reheard at
this time. The other relates to rents Of
real estate, in respect of which the posi-
tion OF the Court Is that they are not
embraced within the scope Of the pre-
uous decisions.
''This conclusion Is one of which
am unable to feel the force or appre
ciate the Justice, and, as the question IL
of immense Importance to the Govern
ment, politically and pecuniarily, | shall
consume few moments In respectfully
urging Its reconsideration.
1T Ia important to bear In mind the
precise question. 1t Is not whether there
may IN not be tax on rents wh'ch hr5s must
Ing them. 1t Is not whether land tax.
measured by rents or rental value. may
not be the most efficient and most scien-
NnsnR - fAv vi ~ nd =
does this Income Tax law create a tax
which Is necessarily to be deemed tax
on real estate.
''For answer, the best source of in
formation Is of counse the statute itself
The most superficial examination shows
that no real estate tax as such Is IN
tended by Congress. II 1t had been
there would have been provision fol
the appraisement, by rental value oil
otherwise, OF vacant and unproluctiv,
land. If II had been. there would hav'
rental value or otherwise, of houses anC
grounds which are occupied "a home
eteads and for purposes of private en-
toyment and pleasure.
THE owner OF vacant, unproductive
lands held for investment or speculation
whether they be city lots or thousands
Of unimproved acres. pays nothing under
millionaire, With a half a million dollar
mansion In the city and an equally cost,
" residence by the seashore. pays moth
ing under this law. The manufacturer
or the railroad corporation, the very
basis Of whose business is the Interest
In the real estate occupied and usec
therefor, pays nothing under this law
on account OF such real estate.
TT is impossible to contend, therefore
that this law contemplates real estat,
as such, as the subject OF the tax i'm
posed BY 1t. II there could be possibl,
doubt on that point, it is excluded b,
the enumera ton OF the subjects of tn,
tax contained In section 2s. Each an'
every one is personal property. and s.
carefully is the distinction observe,
that when the clause impos.n the sue
cession tax Is reached 1t is expressl!
limited to money and the value OF al
personal property acquired by gift or in
heritance.'
Mr.. Olney concluded his argument OF
the Income Tax at $40 l.. NJ, and wa
followed by Mr.. Choate, who began tn,
concluding argument for the appellants
In he