The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1910-05-19
TO RENEW FIGHT
FOR INCOME TAX
Adverse Action of House Of Dele
gates This Winter Does Not
End Matter So Far as
Virginia Is Con-
cerned.
RICHMOND. VA.-special-


, make an effort at the next session OF
the General Assembly to induce leg
lslatorS to swing Virginia's vote
around In favor of the Federal income
tax amendment.
And that, too, despite the violent OH
Jectlons OF Speaker Byrd to the pro-
posed change in the organic law of
this republic.
The Speaker himself can hardly
deny that he has heard about the
schene' ana although he was able, by
mis- superlative skill as a debater and
writer, to induce the last Legislature
to shy Off from the amendment. he
knows full well that he will have an
other light On his hands two years
hence.
1t goes without saying. too. that no
is getting ready for it. and even now
is smiling the strife from afar.
those who have not yet forgotten
the achievements of the General AS
sembly OF 1910, will recall that under
Byrds leadership the House, by a
majority OF Is. voted against the
amendment. although II seemed we'll
nigh certain at the beginning OF the
session that the thing would go
through with its tail feathers up.
This opinion was made the more
fixed by the attitude of Governor
Swanson, who heartily advocated the
change, and even wrote an able mes
sage on the inject.
But the Speaker who guards Viz
Slnla rights as sovereign State :, =
Jealously as Cerberus used to guard
the gates OF Tartarus, uttered a shriu
cry of protest.
Although he knew that the Demo-
crauc ring (mOre euphoniously
called the "organiZation') was q unit
IN favor OF the amendment, he sail
ed I'm like some daring buccaneer and
by mis- exceptional powers of persua-
sion, got the House to backstand him.
The Senate, however, was by no
means so plastic. When the question
came TO a vote there, twenty OF the
twenty-six members present voted i'm
FAVOR OF the amendment while the
remaining six took Byrds view OF the
matter.
There was some talk OF bringing
the question back over To the House
LOT second vote, but the session was
zoo TAR advanced to make this feasible.
preparing for Another Struggle.
Many jumped at the conclusion
therefore, that the redoubtabIe Speak
er' at least SO far as this State is con
cerned. had insured the defeat of tho
proposed amendment for good and
al, ana Virginia's attitude was her
aided throughout the Union.
Undoubtedly the adverse vote of
the House had a tremendous effect in
other parts Of the country. Rut The
powers inat he do not die So e;,si-
~. lrritated as they were win me
Speaker, they determined not TO give
up.
IL Is now whispered around in
Official circles that the income
TAX amendment will be made an
issue in the legislative contests
TWO years hence; i'm other words.
every man seeking TO 90 to the
Legislature will he asked TO cav
IN advance how he will vote ON
the question.
When II is remembered that all ten
OF Nlrginia's Congressman. as well as
| me Two Senators. are against Mr.
bNrd. II can readily be seen that ne
VIII nave all the excitement he v-isbp.
when 1t comes to another battle.
According TO Investigations of
those interested i'm the propoScd
cnanSc, uic action OF the House
uld not scotch the snake which
the Speaker regards a. such a
regal monster. In short. the
amendment is not res adiudicata
so far a. Virginia is concerned.
The prcccdcnts followed by
congress show That even though
one Legislature of a State votes
against proposed constitutional
amendment. the next Legislature
may take il up again.
Cases analogous Ia this came up
In connection with the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Amendments. Nor
does there apcpar TO be any limit
another can vote on the same
thing just as they would on
State law.
On the other hand. Il has been
held that the same principle does
not apply where the action is af-
hrmatiVe. To state things differ
emily, IL Nirgina's General As
Scmbly of 1910 had voted i'm IA
vor of the amendment, the next
Legislature could not undo yVlsat
its predecessor had done
Ne one seems to know exactly what
are the duties OF Governor Mann in
, view OF what has happened, but as
matter Of fact, il doesn't appear
that any action on his part is neces-
SAry.
II may be. however, that Congress
has prescribed some course for Gov
| ernors 10 follow. but whether they
apparently would suffice for the guild
ance Of Congress.
States Take Different Views.
! 1t will take the affirmative votes
of three-fourths OF the States to in
sure the ratification of the amend
ment. Alabama, South Carolina.
Maryland. Oklahoma. Illinois and pos
sibly one other State have declared
| in favor OF the change, while Virginia
Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and
| New York have baked at il.
| Speaker Byrd, who is thoroughly
alive to the activity and shrewdness
| of those favoring the amendment. is
| losing no opportunity to talk and
write against it.
Only few days ago a New York
/ paper carried a brief, but epigram-
/ NAUTICAL, statement wherein the Speak
er explained his hostility to the pro-
| posed change. The statement did not
contain 500 words but every word
was like the blow of a sledge ham
/ mer.
| Editors all over the country copied
! the article and commented on it, One
: describes it as AN outspOken. bell
/ clear utterance." The New Orleans
| Picayune uses il as the theme for an
| editorial and offers il as a reason why
the lawmakers of Louisiana should
vote against the amendment.
While Governor Weeks, Of Connec-
/ ticut, was here with the visiting mill
! tarN he snunht :. nnrsnnnl irntrna,,.