The Washington times., 1895-03-12

Assistant Attorney General Whitney
resumed his argument in sustaining the
income tax law before the United States
Supreme Court to-day. Attorney General
Olney, ex Senator Edmunds, and other
distinguished counsel in the case, occupied
seats at the desk reserved for attorneys.
The courtroom was crowded, Mr. Nc
Mnlin, Mr. Springer. and several other
members OF Congress, who had taken
part in the enactment OF the income tax,
being among the interested listeners.
Mr.. Whitney addressed himself to the
question Of uniformity intaxation, in answer
TO the charge that the income tax violated
the principles of uniformity. He con
tended that the limit of $4,000 fixed by
the law was not class legislation.
The court had sustained tax ex emption
10 manufacturing corporations in the Dis
trict OF Columbia. Building and loan
associations and saving companies We're
frequently exempted by law, as they were
made up OF poor people 10 whom the law
gave special consideration.
Nj Whitney said that the Supreme Court
had already overruled the contention that
the taxation of land values and rentals, as
made by the income tax was invalid
Mr. Whitney took up and argued against
the claim that the Federal Government
cannot tax municipal and local securities
held by individuals.
MR. EDMUSDs' ARGUMENT.
Mr Edmunds. counsel against the tax,
followed de spoke quietly and in a oonver-
sational tone, much as he did when lead
ing figure OF tie Senate He stated the
contention OF his client against an invasion
of his rights and an inspection of his private
books and papers IL there was a coDstitu-
tional provision protecting the individual
il was the Tock upon which the contention
against this tax was based.
MI Edmunds referred in lrOnical terms
10 those who might treat the constitutional
defenses of the individual as an enactment
OF a body of respectable gentlemen who had
disappeared from the face of the earth. He
also created a smile by suggesting that il
might be interesting to know how many of
those in Congress who voted for this tax
expected to pay part OF it.
Mt. kdmunds read from the Constitution
as TO the protection of private rights. He
did not think the time had come when there
should no longer be an appeal to the courts
from the acts of Congress.
He criticised many other features of the
law providing for the collection OF the tax
and pointed out that itlefG no room for resort
or appeal TO the courts, but left the final ad-
justment' to the revenue officers, who, he
said. were not only the final judges, but the
inquistors as well.
HILTON CASE REFERRED.
Mr.. Edmunds then revie wed the cases here
tofore decided which have been referred
to in the previous argument and analyzed
the points involved at length. He was re-
ferring to the Hilton case involving this tax
on carriages when Chief Justice Fuller
called his attention TO the fact that Mr.. Hill
ton had an unusual number OF carriages,
125 as ne remembered.
Unusual in number. yes" Mr.. Edmunds
asserted but he possessed them as many
persons possess virtue and grace
He asked the court 10 overrule its former
decision on the income tax as given in the
Springer case.
He argued that the past Congress had
oyerstepped the limits OF the Constitution
in imposing this tax, because, he said. lit
was short ofmoney," and argued that under
this law 80 per cent. of the tax would be
paid by per cent. OF the taxable voters.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAX.
Justice Harlan asked Nj Edmunds il he
had formulated a definition Of the differ
ence between direct and indirect tax, and
be replied that he had. He thereupou pro-
ceeded to give it, saying that a direct tax
was tax on any kind OF property and upon
persons, not in respect OF property in exist
ence- acquired OF to be acquired, not on a
calling or on the importation of goods, but
in respect To the things which belong to the
existence of property; while an indirect tax
included all the rest, as referred to in the
Constitution under the head Of duties i'm
posts, ana eXcises, which would be heavy
or light on each person depending upon his
will
do you not" asked Justice Brown,
regard a tax that is paid by a person
himself as a direct taX?" and Mr. Edmunds
asSented
Asked by Justice Shiras TO give a defini-
ton OF excise, he quoted Jacobs and Samuel
johnson. where the latter says il is q hate
ful tax" collected by ''wretches" Justice
Harlan suggested that the definition would
fit his (Edmunds') idea OF the income tax,
to which MIR. Edmunds replied that il did
in part
Mr. EdmGnds closed with a plea for
equality in taxation Mr.. Edmunds closed
at $50. and the Court adjourned until to-
day, as Attorney General olney, who is to
speak next, stated that the half hour left
was not sufficient for him.