New-York tribune., 1910-01-06
OPPOSED BY HUGHES
FEDERAL INCOME TAX
Governor Thinks Congress
Resolution Is Too Broad.
tsy Telegraph to The Tribune ]

the legislature the proposed constitu-
fiouaI amendment adopted by Congress
with a recommendation that it be rot
ratified By the Legislature Of this state.
The Governor does not oppose a federal
income tax. On the contrary. he ex-
pressly fsvors one: but maintains that
the language Of the resolution of Con-
gress is so broad as TO permit the tax
alton Of incomes from state and munich
pal bonds. and so interfere with the sale
OF these securities.
The result Of this message at present
cannot be foretoid. Many think it will
prove as important as the Governors
veto of the e-cent fare bin and will
furnish legal argument for opponents
OF the income tax resolution proposed
for consideration nov in all the states
Legislators in both hcuses listened with
great interest to its reading. but most
OF them declined TO comment on il be-
cause they have not had time to study
the proposition. II seems probable that
most OF the Democrats will support the
federal resolution in any case.
Many Republicans are against the in
come tax on general principles. Speaker
wadsworth and Mr. Merritt, majority
leader Of the Assembly. both are under
stood 20 be in this class. Senator Hin
man said he was rather in favor OF the
tax in general, but could not say what
his position on the specific resolution
would be as he had not studied II. Sen
ator Cobb said he was against the tax
h1rf he
studied the Governors case. although he
thought II would be likely TO produce
considerable opposition to the resolution
Of Congress, even among advocates Of
the income tax. Senator Agnew took a
somewhat similar stand.
Senator Bayne, Democrat. said he con-
sidered himself bound by his party's re-
cent national platforms 10 vote for an
income tax. but had not had his day
in court" on this proposition, and didn't
know what he should do with it. Sena-
tor Wagner. Democrat, of New York,
said he favored an income tax, and be-
ueved the Governor was wrong in his
contention regarding the taxation Of in
comes from state and municipal bonds.
GOVERNORS SPECIAL MESSAGE.
The Governors message dealing with
the income tax follows:
To the LEGISLATURE.
! have received from the Secretary of
stste of the United States a certified copy
os resolution OF Congress entitled Joint
Resolution Proposing an Amendment tc the
Constitution of the United States. and in
your honors bic body for such action as
may be had thereon,
The amendment proposed by this. joint
resolution, adopted by two-thirds or both
houses Of Congress, is as follows:
Article XVI. The Congress shall have
power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without ap-
porttoument among the several states and
without regard 10 any census or enumera-
ton
The power TO lay a tax upon incomes.
without spportionment, was long supposed
20 be possessed by the federal government
and has been repeatedly exercised. Such
taxes were laid and paid for the purpose
OF nesting the eXigenctes caused by the
In Iss5 in the case of Pollock agt Farm
er5 Loan and Trust Company a5S L s,
eoi), the United States Supreme Court de-
cided that taxes on the rents or income Of
real estate and taxes on personal prop
eFty or on the income Of personal property
are direct taxes, and hence under the Con-
Etitutton cannot be imposed without appor-
tionment among the several states accord
ing 70 their respective populations
Il was not the function of the court, and
u CID net attempt, TO decide whether or
no; federal income tax was desirable. II
simply Interpreted the Constitution accord
ing TO the judgment Of the majority OF its
members. and left the question of the ad-
visa oility OF comforting such a power upon
the federal government 10 be determined
n the constitutional method.
JUSTICE HARLANs VIEWS
The limitations so placed upon the fed
erai taxing power are thus described by
Ar. Justice Harlan in his dissenting opin-
lon:
Amy attempt upon the part of Congress
10 apporuon among the states, upon the
basis simply Of their population, taxation
ot personal property or OF incomes would
tend 20 arouse SUCH Indignation among the
repeated. When, therefore, this court ad-
judges, as II does now adJudge, that Con-
gress cannot impose duty or tax upon
personal property or upon income arising
either from rents of real estate or from
personal property, including invested per-
sonai property; bonds, stocks and invest
the sum 10 be 50 raised among the states
according 20 population, II practically de-
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. of both houses of
Congress and three-fourths of the states
concorring-such property and incomes can
never be made 70 contribute TO the
support Of the national government. I'd.
pp. 81, p
Incomes arising from trades, employ
msntE, cailings and professions can be
taxed. under the rule of uniformity or
equality, by both the national government
incomes from property, bonds stocks and
investments cannot, under the present de-
elsion. De taxed by the national government
except under the impracCiea bic rule of an
poruohment among the-states according 10
populauon: No sound reason for such
discrimination has been or can be sur-
eested-" I'd, ,. SS0.)
1 am IN favor OF conferring lpon the
federal government the power 20 Law and
Collect IN income tax without apportion-
ment among the states according TO non
EIation; l believe that this power should
De held by the federal government so as
properly 10 equip II with the means of
nesting national exigencies
But the power 10 tax incomes should not
be granted IN such terms as TO subject TO
FEDERAL taxation the incomes derived from
ponas ISSUED oy the state itself or those
ISSUED by municipal governments Organized
under the states authority To place the
borrowing capacity Of the state and of its
governmental agencies at the mercy of the
federal taxing power would be an impair
fneIt Of the essential rights of the stare
which, as its officers, we are bound 10
defend
PROPOSAL TO AMEND CONSTITUTION.
You are called upon 10 deal with a
specific proposal 70 amend the Constitu-
ceterrlined not by a general consideration
OF the propr1ety Of a just federal income
TAX. CT Of giving 10 the federal govern
rls=t the power TO lay such q tax but
WHISTLER or not the particular proposal is
OF such a character as 10 warrant your
assent.
This proposal is that the federal govern
msnt shall have the power to lay and
so.aeef iaxes On incomes %fron whatever
II Is 20 De borne IN mind that this is not
mere statute 70 be construed in the