Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-04-08
mo BUCKET SHOP TAX
Senate Accepts House Provision
Removing Tax on Bucket
Shop Transactions.
War Revenue Repeal Bill Now
Goes to the President
for Signature.
The Chinese Exclusion Measure
Amended and Then Passed
by the House.

Washington, April S.-Consid
time was consumed by the senate yes
terday in a discussion of the confer
ence report on the bill to reduce war
revenue taxes AS passed by the SEN
ate the tax on transactions in so-called
bucket shops was retained. The con-
fere,ss struck out that provision. 1T be-
ing explained that the house would not
consent to it's retention Mr.. Berry of
Arkansas, Mr.. Bacon of Georgia and
Mr.. Pettus of Alabama insisted that
the senate should demand the retention
of the tax Mr.. Aldrich of Rhode Island.
Mr.. Allison of Iowa and Mr.. Spooner of
Wisconsin, while they were in favor of
the tax, explained that it could not be
retained without endangering the en-
tire measure.
Mr.. Aldrich explained that the con-
tention of those who insisted upon the
removal of the bucket shop tax was
that the effect OF the senate provision
would be to remove the tax upon trans
actions of small brokers. This, ii was
maintained, would be in the nature of
discrimination. The senate conferees
had yielded upon that point, as they
did not think the bill ought to fail on
account of the difference as to the
bucket shop tax.
Mr.. Bacon of Georgia maintained
that as the tax upon bucket shops was
a proper source of revenue and the tax
manifestly was properly laid, it ought
to be continued.
In answer to an inquiry by Mr.. Lodge
Mr.. Allison, one of the conferees. said
the senate would have TO agree to the
report or perhaps lose the bill.
Mr.. Allison then explained just what
the measure, meant as agreed to by the
collferees. He said that the provision
of law under consideration did not
place a tax upon what are popularity
known as bucket shops. The question
of placing a tax upon transactions in
exchanges or boards of trade could not
be dealt with in the present conference
report.
Mr.. Allison explained that the house
confefees maintained that the senate
tax on bucket shops was prohibitive'
and in effect struck down a business
that was as legitimate as were Stransac-
lions on boards of trade. Personally
he was in favor of the retention Of the
tax upon bucket shops, but he was sat
istied, in view of the position of the
house conferee, that the tax could not
be retained.
Mr. Bacon maintained that the law
applied to both boards of trade and
bucket shops, except as to the latter
it applied to 10th legal and illegal con-
tracts. He thought 1t was clearly with
in the purpose of the conferees to deal
with the levying of the tax upon trans
actions both in bucket shops and in
regular exchanges.
Mr.. Spooner said he was in favor of
the retention of the tax on bucket
shops, which he considered a most in
sIdious and destructive form of gam
bling. The tax was in his opinion,
wholesome and we'll justified. but when
he was informed by the senate con-
ferees that the house was irrevocably
opposed to the retention of the tax he
was not willing to jeopardize the bill,
which generally reduces taxes, by in
sisting on his view.
s6 to 90.