The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1909-05-22
No INCOME TAX.

NO INCOME TAX.
There is a good deal of talk in con.
gress and out Of it about an income
tax. but the probability that such q
law will be put on the statute books
at the present time is exceedingly re-
mote. Senator Aldrich has suggested
that the judiciary committee should
look into the matter and report next
winter whether constitutional in
come tax lew can be drawn, and, If
SO, whether there is any need for the
revenues It would produce. Quite like
ly this will be all that will be done
in the matter just now. The practical
difficulties in the way are thus stated
by Raymond in dispatch from
Washington to the Chicago Tribune:
Unfortunately for those who be-
lieve the United States should resort
to tax on incomes as an ordinary
means of raising revenue, there are
several things in the way. and the
senators composing the judiciary com
nlittee understand that probably bet
ter than anybody else. First of all Is
the position taken by the United
States supreme court. It's decision is
as good law today as 1t ever was.
That Is to say, the principles laid
down by the supreme court are for the
present at least the supreme law of
the land. 1t makes no difference
whether the court was unanimous or
not, Its decision is final until that
~ nh IN ff0n1f
Many able lawyers believe the in
come tax law Of 1894 should have been
held constitutional. Others have the
contrary opinion. Others think the
1894 law might be amended in such a
way as to be- approved by the court.
The only way to find out whether the
court has changed its views as the
result Of an infusion of new blood
or whether the last income tax law
can be amended SO as to pass muster
Is to pass new law of the same gen.
eral character and have 1t tested in
the courts until the supreme court
once more renders an opinion.
I'm the meantime the existing de-
cision is as binding upon any federal
court in the United States as il II
were made yesterday. The difficulty
lis that in the two decisions rendered
! by the supreme court knocking out
| the income tax broad principles were
applied. The law was not fount
! wanting because Of loosely drawn Ian
guage. The court did not split UP OF
technicalities, nor was the income ia,
assailed because congress had failed
4 to do certain things.
ION the contrary, the supreme cour
attacked the general principle OF tn
4 income tax. In several particulars !
was declared to be repugnant to tn
constitutional provision which pre-
4 hibits the levying Of a direct tax e1
4 cept in proportion to population. TIL
court did not go to the extent OF de
claring every feature of the law III
constitutional It attacked certai
sections which were vital, and wne
they were ruled out the rest OF tn
law fell Of its own weight"
q Raymond intimates quite plainl
that good deal Of what certain SCI
ators are saying in favor Of an incom
, tax Is intended for consumption b
| their constituents, "but most OF thei
/ know they are perfectly safe, an
, many Of them would be frightened
: death If they thought there was til
: slightest prospect of an income ia
{ being voted by congress at the presei
3 time" Senator Cummins is credite
with honestly believing in an incon
tax Even IL the senate should ado
such an amendment, which Is not
all probable. the amendment cou
not pass the house under present co
, ditions without opening up fierce d
bate which would postrone action
:, the tariff for months and possibly
: definitely. At the best congress cou
: not agree on so radical departu
2 from The existing methods Of taxatt'
until we'll along toward the end OF t
= next session. 1t might then take o
! or two or three years to get sat
: factory decision from the suprer
= court and In the meantime If the
= was any shortage of revenue 1T wor
:. be absolutely necessary to resort
- other sources of taxation. If they p
duced revenue enough the princi1
: argument for an income tax VOL
= fall to the ground so far as the prese
= emergency is concerned. Besid
=. !. many congressman of both parties
=, disinclined to commit the country
d d any such system because they belle
al it would be an incentive to wholes
fraud. Raymond predicts that ii 81
Re a law is ever placed on the stat
I'D hooks It will be done on its mer
is and as a general principle and
* merely as a means Of providing r
on enue to make up the deficiencies OF
TT tariff law.
es
on THE STARCH EATING HABIT.
81 Tho chicago Tribune sounds wa