The Tacoma times. [volume] (Tacoma, Wash.) 1903-1949, 1909-07-07
BY ellison Gardner.

Inc nearest tn1ng TO crime
that congress has yet undertaken
to commit is this proposed cor
poration tax"
The speaker was Senator Borah
of Idaho. These new senators
and especially the ones from the
west-have frank way of calling
a spade a spade. was looking
for a little frank opinion on the
subject of the administrator
tail to the tariff bill. ! suggest
ed that the language was rather
strong.
mo 1t isn't said he. cts vi
cfous. The measure is vicious. 1t
isn't honest. 1t isn't frank. 1t
isn't what it pretends to be. 1t is
bad in seven different ways, and
l am against it In all seven"
Can you tell briefly and in
words of one syllable why 1t is
bad?"
The Idaho senator said:
mo. 1. 1t is not a tax on
wealth. though it pretends to be.
mo. q. The burden of the tax
can and will be transferred imme-
diately to the consumer, and will
not be paid by the corporation.
mo. 8. IT is of questionable
constitutionality. ALI the argu-
ments against a re-enaetment of
the income tax are valid against
this; and then some.
"No. 4. The law will add moth
ing to the publicity of corporation
business. 1t will not enlarge the
powers which the government now
has under the interstate commerce
act and the act which created the
bureau of corporations.
mo. 5. 1t discriminates be-
tween the various small corpora
lions, taxing some and exempt
ing others.
No. 6. 1t places a certain le-
gal sanction on the holding COM
pany; and the holding company is
one of the instruments for Great
ing monopolies and trusts.
"No. 7. 1t is brought in to de-
feat legitimate and proper tax
on wealth-that. is, a tax on in
comes.
"Those are some of the reasons
against the passage of this pro-
posed law"
(Which do you consider the
most Important"
well, ! think the most inn
portant one for the public to keep
in mind is the fact that the cor
poration will not pay the tax; that
is, the big corporation will not.
The little corporation will. In the
competitive field it will not be
possible for the corporation to
transfer the tax. Let me illus
trate. Suppose 1t is little
creamery company out in Wiscon-
sin earning $4,000 a year. There
are lot of little creamery COM
panies and some of them are not
Incorporated. The ones not in
corporated won't pay any tax un-
der the law. Incorporated ones
will have to pay. But how about
the United States Express Co. and
the railroad corporations? Do
you suppose they will pay tax?
BY no means. They will simply
transfer it. I am not INDUCING
in prophecy. l am simply calling
attention to what has taken place
under similar circumstances In
the past. In 1898 this question
came up. In that year certain
war taxes were placed on certain
of the large corporations, like the
war revenue stamps on kilograms,
express receipts, and SO forth. Did
the telegraph companies pay?
Not in the least. The person
sending the telegram put the
stamp on, and it was so with all
the stamp taxes levied through
these big quasi-public corpora
|tions. Being practically monopo-
lies, they were able to do this.
They were not in competitive
fields. Their situation was diff
ferent from that of the creamery
company or the little corporation
whose prices are kept down by
competition.
but more than that. The big
corporations even went to the SUI
preme court and got a ruling that
congress could not keep them
from transferring the tax to the
consumer. They got ruling
that it would be an infringement
of the freedom of contract. Now,
do you see why the big corpora
ton is not fighting this tax on
corporations?"
Then you don't think that the
big corporations are against this
form of taxation?"
81 know they are not. And If
did not know otherwise, have Mr.
Aldrich's word for it. He says they
are not
Then this bill is popular with
those who think that 1t will sfmp-
ly be another way of placing the
burden on the consumer If il
amounts to anything at aIl?"
"There is no doubt of it. / am
convinced that Mr.. Aldrich il
firmly and irrevocably opposed to
ANY legislation which will result
in placing tax on wealth. He Ii
willing to accept this bill In lieu
of a genuine income tax amend.
ment because 1t does not put any
tax on wealth."
you. said this would be as ques-
ttionable from constitutional
point of view as the income tax?'
And that's fact. They tall
Iabout enacting a law suit. They
Twill be up against the same thinf
| that was a stumbling block In The
Income tax case They get into
this mess by trying to exempt the