The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-03-01
Senator Roots Defenrr 81 the In
come Tax Amendment.


II In a grave public misfortune that
the partisan eXigenCy involved in the
passage Of the So-callei PAYNE tariff
bill by rhe Senat" required n order To
insure the necessary support that The
Republican organization should give ia
III considered and III advised though
somewhat p~ritrnctory support to the
adoption Of an income tax amendment
In the Constitution such a situation
hardly furnishes unsuitable or adequate
occasion for 4 profound change in or
fundamental law.
The plan thus cngendered nv legisla-
tive stress il in the process Of gradual
consummation. senator DAVENPORT
had read yesterday in the New York
Senate letter from Senator ROOF sup
porting the amendment and replying To
the message Of Governor HUOHEs in
which the Governor recommended that
the amendment should not be- ratified :
because IL authorized the taxation 81
incomes derived from State and mu-
nicipal securities In support Of his
failure TO agree with the views eX-
pressed by the Governor on the con-
struction Of the proposed amendment
the junior senator from New York
makes plausible and ingenious though
a. we believe fallaClcus argument.
Before commenting upon the argyll
ment itself. there are a few preliminary
Suggestions proper to he made In
discussing the practical or political
question involved, Senator RoOT urges
T.. that at least in one time 81 peril an
income tax proved essential 10 the
nations life: and in summing up
his reasons for the adoption Of the
amendment. he says II may be again
a. Il has once been vital To the pres
ervation ~ national existence
This insist"noe upon the passage Of
the amendment, ~ belng necessary 20
provide IN. Federal Government with
an adequate resource in case of great
national peril or eNigencv - well nigh
universal upon the part ~ rs advocates,
and il il a. disingcnuolIs A. II IL universal
II the power 10 be veste,i IN the Federal
Government by the amendment, was
contemplated only for such purpose
the amendment should have confined
the exercise y! the power TO such occa-
sions. Thus limited. there would no
doubt have been an immediate abste-
ment Of enthusiasm and probably an
active opposition on he part of those
who now supper, II. T. u not 80 in
tended and such j. not - purpose. II
II common knowledge thai The real pur-
pose il 20 make an income tax per-
manent part NJ our fiscal system. Con-
fined To national peril or eXicency. the
amendment would have no oppO@itiOn.
To urge n for that reason whom IL il NOT
20 confined and is not 50 intended j. not
entirely ingenious.
The able senator evplains that 'he
incorporation 81 an income tax
IN the nsV 'arr law would ~ ~ nressn,
again IN the SlrrrrYr court ne ssn- questions
which hAd been considered In N" Pollock case
and IN challenge reversal - fheir dsci. ion
Tnereupon tls Tr-rI4tinn fuv ne suhnr fssl1n 81
tnIs amendment vas Introduced In no S.nst~ and
Was passed ny Congress
He then savs. a. = justification for the
submission " the amendment:
IRE proposal followed ne suggestion ~ the
supreme court W 'ar rolIo,s c4s.
II senator Roor means by this that
the Supreme Court which for the pur-
rose 81 this point - rh- majority even
lntimaled 'ha; the Cons'Itution ought
70 be amended or that they approved "
such Amendment. 49, beg leave to infer
with him Precisely the contrary ~ the
fart. II j. true that Mr. Chief Justice
FULLER on the reh"aring IN answer %
the suggestion that the Constitution
should have been ~ framed that tax
of this kind could be iaid, made the
obvious remark that Il that was de-
sired il could be accomplished by an
amendment to the Constitution. But
there - nothing that even lends tn indi-
cate thai such an amendment would
meet with hIs approval On The con-
trary, in hIs first opinion he vigorously
Impressed himself ~ 70 the salutarv
ehc5s r: the provisions IT the Constl-
u'ion requiring direct taxes 10 Re sp-
portIoned among The States IN proper
ton % ,helT population when he said
q was 20 prevent an attack upon ac-