The Washington herald., 1909-04-28


ing them TO pieces and reviewing them
from all sides. senator Joseph W Bailey.
OF Texas, yesterday resumed his speech
on his income tax amendment TO the
Payne-Aldrich tariff bill, and held the
close attention OF Senators and crowds Of
spectators in the Senate galleries for
nearly three hours.
He challenged the decision Of the Su-
preme Court which declared the income
tax unconstitutional because II was a
direct tax. and read passages from the
various members Of that tribunal 10 show
that the law he would have enacted
would be valid.
Senator Bailey had the closest atten-
tion Of the Senators during his long dis
cUssion. and the interest manifested by
persons in the galleries was equal 10 that
OF Monday when the Texan began his
speech. At times applause came from
the spectators. and the Vice President
was forced 10 warn them thar no demon
stration was allowed.
sIany Questions PrOpOunded.
Often members Of the Senate asked
questions and made suggestions 10 the
speaker, and he answered them all with
a willingness that added interest to the
debate. However. there were none Of the
Interesting coIloQuies between him and
other Senators that gave his speech Mon
day such a spicy tone
Senator Sutherland asked one OF two
questions which Indicated that he did not
agree with Senator BaiIey's legal conclu-
siOns but other interrogatories. prOpOurd-
ed by Senator's Nelson. Of Minnesota, and
Borah. OF Idaho indicated that both Sen
ators agreed with Mr.. Bailey.
The Senator did not take the floor until
after . o'clock. The first two hours Of
the session were consumed by Senator
Scott. Of West Virginia. who precipitated
fierce party debate. IN which Senators
Scott. EIkins. and McCumber defended
the Republican policy Of protection. and
Senator Gore, Of oklahoma, attacked il
Constitutional Argument.
Mr.. Bailey's argument was constitu-
tionality. He opened by inquiring what
constituted direct taxes. He asserted that
neither in the Continental Congress. the
confederation that followed. nor the con-
stitutional convention had the question
been satisfactorily answered
Mr- Bailey said II was a matter Of sin
cere regret that the trainers OF the Con-
stitution did not give a satisfactory defni-
tion OF What IS a direct tax?"
He said that IN the absence Of any
suggestion from the constitutional con-
vention the proper recourse for the inter
probation Of the term direct tax was 10
The Senator's frst citation was the
early carriage tax. levied in I7s4 He re-
ferred TO the popular interest in the Ques-
ton when il was submitted TO the United
States Supreme Court on an agreed state
ment OF facts; how Madison denounced IL
and Alexander Hamilton appeared TO
argue the case for the government in
favor Of sustaining the cOnstitutiOnality
OF the tax
Mr Bailey said that the decision in the
case had been sneered al by lawyers
some Of whom COntended that the only
important parts Of il were obiter dicta.
yet the opinion had always been respected
by courts and text writer's and was not
questioned even by the court IN the de-
Cision Of the Pollard case The Sena-
tor reminded his colleagues that some
Of The members Of the court which de-
cided the carriage case had been mem
bers Of the Constitutional convention and
should have been familiar with the intent
OF the trainers OF the Constitution.
As tending TO show that the country
accepted the decision in the carriage case
as eXemDtinE personal property as not
beng an object Of direct taxes. Mr Bailey
cited the acts OF 179S, 1873, and 1913 levy
ing direct taxes. all OF which exempted
personal property from the levy. Even
President Madison. who had denounced
the carriage tax as unconstitutional be-
fore the decision Of the carriage tax
signed the acts Of 1913 and 1915.
Senator Bailey declared the income tax
was no more inQuisitorial than many OF
the laws on the statute books in the va
rious States. I do not believe that an
income tax viii make Us nation OF
liars, he declared 7 do not believe
that any American citizen will tell i lie
70 escape his just burden Of taxation. II
there is. and could find him out I
would vote to increase his taxes a hun
dredfold"
Not Oppressive Tax.
The Senator contended that the income
tax would not be oppressive TO the rich
even. The money spent by the New
York uillionaires in idIeness and vice.
said ne. ''is but a slight fraction Of an
income tax
Practically the whole expense Of run
ming the government. he declared, is for
the purpose Of protecting the property. Of
the rich. and surely, he asserted. they
should be willing to pay their share OF
the expense Of the protection The Door
man. said he gave his services IN case
OF war and served on jUries because he
had been taught that II is a duty. but
the rich usually escape such service.
The first decision in the Pollard case in
the Supreme Court was characterized by
some arguments which would be more
Gignifed by the name 'petufogging.' It
Is not true he continued. that the IN
comes from real estate were 10 be re-
Earded as real estate Rents or incomes
from real property said the Senator,