The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-03-02
BAILEY PLEADS
FOR INCOME TAX
Texas Senator Argues
for Amendment to
Constitution.
|NO ABRIDGMENT
| OF STATES RIGHTS
Increased Receipts From Incomes
Exceeding $1,000 the Only
Way to Prevent Deficit if
Tariff Is Reduced to a
Basis of Revenue
Only.

In convincing exposition of its
constitutionality and necessity United
States Senator Joseph Weldon sailey'
of Texas, last night advocated the
proposed income tax amendment TO the
Federal Constitution before the mem-
hers of the General Assembly of Ntr-
ginia. The hall of the House of Dele
gates was filled with memh1rs, state
officials and citizens. Throughout the
address the closest attention was
given to the distinguished speaker
| and II seemed to be the universal i'm
| preston at the close that his arsu.
1 ment was not only a fine oratoriat
| effort. but an unansWerable contention
| for the adoption of the amendment.
| After Senator Bailey had been es-
corted to the Speakers stand by the
| joint legislative committee of recep-
tion, Lieutenant-G Governor Ellyson pre-
! sented Senator Halsey, who, in an
1 eloquent speech showed that the in
| come tax has been since 1896 Demo-
| cratic doctrine. Mr.. Halsey introduced
Senator Bailey as a public servant
who had enjoyed a career of unusual
| brilliancy." and as second to no living
man as constitutional lawyer"
! No Indiscriminnte Amendments.
Acknowledging the mighty part
| played by Virginia in the formation
| and adoption of the Constitution. SEN
ator Bailey asserted that he would
despair of the republic If Virginia
| should fail to be vigilant in inquiring
into the advisability of an amendment
| 20 that precious document.
4 The Constitution is not thing
/ to be amended with ease and at will"
he remarked. "and find 1t difficult to
4 restrain my patience when members
4 of Congress propose an amendment to
the effect that the presidential in
auguration day shall be put later in
the year, so that the presidential pa
| rade may be made bigger show. II no.
body could be at tpese5 ceremonies but
sl5lne P1esident- elect s1fd the Chief Jus-
1 tice OF tie Supreme Court, ! would
4 still be opposed TO such an Innovation.
for do not believe in a military dis
4 play on such an occasion, which is
i essentially a civic one Only some
i great purpose justifies amendment to
u that great charter of our liberties.
j The resolution which submitted
this proposed amendment to the aev-
eral States of our nation was passed
unanimously by the Senate, and with
but few dissenting votes in the House.
Both parties are in favor of this ad-
sire the Republicans in the General
, Assembly OF Virginia to note that
your General Assembly contains
, enough Republicans to show how good
, it is to be Democrat
!, No Abridgment of States Rights.
Proceeding to refute the objection:
: advanced by the opponents of the
I amendment, he ridiculed the idea tina
I Its passage would alter the position,
OF the Federal government and tn,
States, or impair the integrity o
States rights.
: The power to tax incomes is al
e ready vested in the Federal govern
r ment by the Constitution" he said
: and the only change sought by tn.
proposed amendment is change !,
S the method of laying the tax. \ lin
n Of decisions, unbroken until 1895. es
g tablshed conclusively that the govern
r ment had the power to levy such
tax. The Pollock case. decided by tn
n Supreme Court in 1895, held an incom
n tax law unconstitutional, on IN
g ground that it did not provide tha
: the tax should be levied by apportlon
- ment among the STATES as required b
4. the Constitution. The power no,
, soaghr by Congress is to levy an in
" come tax, not according to the popula
:, tion of the States, but in accordanc
:. with the rule Of uniformity. The sol
- change IS change in the rule OF ho
~ the levy shall be made. For instanc
20 should Congress levy tax under tn
- present harsh rule of apportionme,
according to population. Arkanss
would have to pay one-sixth Of whs
6 New York would have to pay. Viii
a. the population of New York is 81
ra times that of Arkansas. it is twen,
r. times as great in wealth. and, ther,
h fore, citizen of New York would |
ly required to pay less than one-four,
upon every dollars worth Of his pr,
a. perty subject to the tax as the cltiZt
he Of Arkansas would be required ID pa
ly That is manifest and gross ineouali.
ne and If the new rule We're adopted, a
is persons possessing an income Of $500
Sc, or more, would have to pay an incon
ad tax, regardless OF the population
ct the State in which they might reside
ag Replies to Hughes.
IT, The next objection he consider
Of New York. on the ground that t
m tax might prove a tax on the instr
mt mentalities of the State, and thus
ne power to the Federal government
g. destroy the State,
his IF any but the Governor of N,
on York had raised snch an objection
no said Senator Bailey, "he would ha
or been considered grossly absurd"
d He cited, in answer to the impre
lse nable constitutional principle Il
ed down in the case of McCulloch
Maryland, that the Federal COVE,
ment cannot tax the instrumentalit
lly of the state, nor the State those
he the Federal government. This de
rm sion was written by Chief lust
be Marshall, zone of the greatest op
onI ions falling from the lips of man."
ld- cording to the speaker,
ss- Decreasing for a minute Sena
Bailey said II am not here to
en- that Congress does not do some fool
lb- things hut do say that 1t will q
ich tinue to do foolish things until De
ted ocratc Congress lis elected Our
- :,