Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-03-11
Mi1tsllanrcu1 Grading.
STATUS OF THE INCOME TAX.
Constitutional Amendment Now Before
the States.

the States.
There still seems To be some misun-
dcrStanding of the status of the income
tax propuSal now before the country
upon which the South Carolina legisla =
ture has recently acted. writes Zach
McGhec To the Columbia State. South
Carolina has not voted to enact Il Fed
eral income tax. has not even voted for
the enactment of such law. When
Senator Bailey. for instance, spoke be-
fore the legislature in favor of the in
come tax he was not speaking on the
same proposal as that upon whicn he
made his great speech in the senate
last year. An income tax bill was IN
troducod by Senator Bailey in the SEN
ate. but that was to enact an income
tax law, and his speech was to show
that it would be constitutional. He
was defeated, the Republicans being in
the great majority. But in order to
defeat it these Republicans, led by
President Taft and Mr. Aldrich, got
Il constitutional amendment authOriZ-
ing the congress to enact an income tax
law OStcnSibly the president and the
leaders of his party in congress claim
ed tnat congress did not have the au-
thority to pass such 4 law the supreme
court having once declared the law
passed in 1894 unconstitutional. Mr.
Taft afterwards admitted that he was
not sincere i'm this and that what he
really wanted to do was to defeat the
income tax. because. he said. should
an income tax law be enacted which
would raise a large amount of revenue
there would not be such good excuse
for a high protective tariff. 1t was
never intended by those who proposed
this idea that the states should vote
for the constitutional amendment. That
is why the Republican newspapers, like
for instance the New York Tribune
which the Charleston News and Cour-
ier has been quoting in support of its
opposition to the income tax. have
been so maliciously and cOntentiously
urging the legislatures of the various
states to turn down the proposed con-
StitutiOnal amendment.
Twice in recent times congress has
enacted an income tax law, without
any constitutional amendment author
iZing it. once in 1862, a law which
fn,
was repeated, not because it was con-
Sidercd wrong in principle, but because
the rates were thought To be too high
and burdensCr:c by the few men of
wealth who were then as they are now
able To dominate the whole country.
Then again. in 1894, the Wilson tariff
law contained an income tax. This
was put on with special provision
that it should expire in 1900. But short
~ after it was passed the supreme
court declared by a vote of five to four
that IN income tax not apportiOncd
among the people according tO pOpu-
lation was unconstitutional. 1t was
upon the theory that the court was so
closely divided. and then after one
man had changed his mind between
Friday and Monday, as Senator Bailey
showed. that the effort was made by
the Democrats with the aid of three
or four Republican insurgents, tn put
through an income tax last year to
take the place of high tariff duties.
All the South Carolina members and
senators have always been or appeared
To be in favor of the income tax. All
were in favor of it last year. and want
ed to put it through without any con-
StitutiOnal amendment. When. in 1894,
the income tax amendment was put
into the Wilson tariff bill on the floor
of the house by an amendment offered
by Representative Mcmillan of Ten
neSsec, Democrat, of course, VINO had
charge of certain features of the bill
in the house. there was no roll call, but
it was adopted by acclamation. 1t may
be assumed that nearly all the Demo-
Gratis voted for il and nearly all, if
not all. the Republicans against il.
Certainly no one about here ever heard
of any South Carolina Democrat at
that time being against it, In the SEN
ate the two South Carolina senator's
Butler and Irby, were for it. 1t is in
tcreSting To note. however. that Grover
Cleveland. then president. expressed
himself in a letter tn Mr.. Wilson, chair
man of the house ways and means
committee. as against the income taX
or rather as not being altogether salts
fled with it, for ut the time of the fa-
NOUS letter tu MT. Wilson the income
tax provision had been passed. David
g. Hill of New York i'm the senate
voted against the whole tariff bill.
The first income tax law was passed
July !. 1862, and took effect January
|, 1868. Ii provided that all incomes
over $500 and not over $4,000 should be
assessed ut per cent, and that all in.
comes over $4,000 should be assessed
ut ; per cent.
March >. 1865. the law was amended,
increasing the rates on incomes be-
tween 5000 and $4,000 from 3 per cent