Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-02-11
RIGHT TO TAX RICHES
Senator Borah Sees No Need
of Constitutional Amendment.
PERIL IN PEOPLES WRATH
Defeat of Justice by Wealthy Glass
Sure to Start Something.
GOV. HUGHES IS CRITICISED
Blamed for Opposition to Federal
Proposition While Asserting APP
prevail of It's Purposes.
GOV. HUGHES Is CRITICISED

Senator William T.. Borah of Idaho
took occasion in the Senate yesterday to
attack the opposition of those who oppose
acceptance by the several states of the
proposed amendment to the Constitution
of the United States which would permit
the levy of tax on incomes without
apportionment between the states.
Incidentally the senator paid his re-
spects to Gov. Hughes of New York.
including him by inference among those
who profess to be In favor of an income
tax. but oppose practical measures which
would permit its enforcement. His allu-
sion was. of course. to Gov. Hughes
annual message to the New York state
legislature urging defeat of the proposed
amendment on the ground that it's Ian
guage might he construed as to
authorize Congress to tax incomes de-
rived from state and municipal bonds.
Public Distrustful.
Senator Borah pictured the mind of the
public in a state of suspicion and dis
contentment toward the government and
declared that the people could not much
longer be withheld from radical action
IL taxation were continued in protection
of wealth and in exemption of incomes
which sustain luxury and breed idleness
and idiocy.''
The senator said in substance:
The history OF the income tax since
1894 has not been one which any citizen
can recite with pride. For a hundred
years a rule Of construction, as esiab
lished by the men who helped to write
the Constitution, had received the APP
prevail OF an undivided court time and
time again.
During this period there sat upon the
bench of the Supreme Court some of the
greatest lawyers of that or any other
period of this any other country. Dur
ing this period the wealth OF this country
had not become SO mlncering. so power
full. SO determined to have its own way.
During this period, therefore, We had
under the Constitution the right To i'm
pose a part of the tax upon wealth and
a part upon consumption, and We did
50.
Decision of 1894.
''In 1894 and 1895 these precedents were
overturned. This Constitution received an
Interpretation unknown to its makers.
.In the face of two most powerful dis
sen.inS opinions, TO which two other
Judges assented. the humiliating and as
founding doctrine was announced that
the makers of the republic had hedsed
wealth about 50 that the taxing powers
of the government could not reach 1T
even in time of war; that the founders
OF a government based upon eauanty
and Justice had made it impossible 10
divide the burdens Of government Dc
tween consumption and large class Oh
gathered wealth
Last session OF this body We were
called upon to ratify and declare BY eA-
press act assent to that nterpreta-
ton t'nier the rule Of the majority we
did So We submitted this proposed
amendment to remedy this supposed
hideous defect in the fundamental law.
Now the scheme and plan IS to defeat
the amendment Having. AS a law
making body, so,emnly accepted this con-
struction Of the constitution, thereps
making il impracticable again to appeal
TO the court, if this amendment can he
defeated. this, the government of the
people. for the people and by the people,
will stand alone among all the civilized
nations Of the earth shorn of the power
t, tax that form OF wealth best able to
bear the burdens of government