Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-11
Senator Hills Remarks on the Pro-
visions of the Law.
HE ATTACKS IT'S CONSTITU4IONALITY
Exceptions Taken to the Treasury
Department Regulations.
MATTERS IN THE HOUSE

The Senate was called to order today by
Mr. Harris (Tenn), who was yesterday re-
elected president pro tenn.
On motion of Mr. Butler Is. c.. the Sem
ate agreed to a resolution asking the Sec
rotary of War to submit an estimate Tor
certain improvements in Port Royal sound
South Carolina, including a channel thirty
feet at high water over the bar.
On motion of Mr.. Cockrell CMo.), the Sen
ate then took up the urgent deficiency bill,
and Mr.. Hill On. " spoke in behalf Of his
amendment to the law to allow an oppor-
tunity to test it's constitutionality.
MIR. Hill and MIR. PETER.
Before proceeding with his speech, Mr..
Hill made a statement regarding remark
in the speech of Mr.. PETER QAan) yester-
day, bearing on his QIills) opposition to
the law. Mr.. Hill was under the impression
that Mr. PETER had charged him with NIL
clustering, and said that he knew OF nothing
that had taken place since he was mem
Der of the Senate that justified the Senator
from Kansas in charging that this bill was
to meet with any iiiibustering so lar as ne
(HilD was concerned.
Mr.. PETER declared that he had not useu
the word hlibuSter since he had Deen d
member Of the Senate. He had sald tHe
Senator from New York and the senator
from Pennsylvania Quay had mace up
their minds 10 defeat the collection Oh the
income tax, if in their power to do so, and
that the amendment proposed by them was
the first step in that proceeding.
Against Its ConstitutiOnality.
Mr.. Hill first argued against the con-
stitutioEality of the law, and referring
to the exemption clauses he asked Where
had Congress the right to exempt class.
He did not ask that the law be repealed
a. this session Of Congress. He recognized
that as impossible. nor did he ask its re-
peal. because 1t was not apportioned &C,
cording to the last census He attacked
the regulations of the treasury for the
collection Of the tax, and said he was COM
PEELED to protest against the treasury IN
terpretations Of the law and the inter]ec-
ton therein of instrumentalities not con-
tenlplated by the SeEate. He was within
bounds when he characterized the feature
Of the pending bill relating to the income
tax as a shipshod arrangement; under 1t
the citizens had no protection. Another
serious ami Equity in the law was what
assessment or whose assessment Is to be
fir al?-
Is the taxpayer to have any appeal to
the commissioner?
There was nothing in any section OF the
income tax law of 1884 that authorized
suit against the tax collector CT any one
else to recover back taxes illegally enacted.
This. he asserted, was one of the most 1m-
portant questions in this discussion.
M Power to Return Taxes. .
He asked where in the pres ent law was
there any power given to the commissioner
of internal revenue or to any other officer
to return taxes enormously collected? Mr..
Hill spoke of how hard it would be to
maintain a law against which the legal
profession was opposed. and of how the
money involved would be enlisted in serv-
ices of lobbyists and lawyers on both sides
of Pennsylvania avenue, and of the pres
sure to get back taxes in the event of the
repeal of the law. 1t the duty of the
Senate to remove the antiquities in the
law while the matter was before it. If the
antiquities were not removed, it was rea-
sonably certain that the experiences con-
nected with the direct taxes of the war
period and its refund would be repeated
Taxpayers would besiege the treasury
Court of Claims and Congress for re-
fund CT the tax.
The Senator also questioned the right of
Congress under the Constitution TO tax the
income from notes, bonds, other securi
ties issued by states or minor divisions of
states.
The income tax was not for securing
revenue only. but to harass and worry,
and, he asked, shall the inquisitorial forms
proposed by the Treasury Department be
tolerated by Congress? ..'''
The great newspapers Of New York city,
who were organized as corporations under
the New York laws, must return their an
nual profits and pay per cent thereon.
Why, the Senator asked, could not the
government be content with plain, trust
worthy statement of the annual net profits
of the enterprise?
Many of the questions put forward in
the treasury regulations had no warrant
in the law unless the law empowered the
department to put any question 1t pleased.
Many of the questions were, the Senator
asserted. absurdly inquisitorial.