The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-07-07
SENATOR PICKS POWERFUL ARGUMENTS FOR INCOME TAX
 RATIFICATION IN SENATE

Senator Pecks remarks upon the Income tax amendment are reproduced herewith, as far as possible. from his notes. but the compilation. does not do Justice to the speech which he made In favor of ratification when the mat ter came up In the Senate recently. Senator Pecks remarks follow:
 Mir. President:- R
 The Senator from the 25th avs that this is a most important question. It Is indeed an important question, more Important than public utilities. If we pass this bill, we are giving back to the government the authority it had, pr supposed it had, from 1787 to 1895.
 In 1895 the Supreme court decided that the income tax law was uncon- stitutional by a vote of to 4. The government should have the power In case of necessity or emergency to lay an income tax. It was a very con- venient power to have during the Civil War, when it raised S400,000, coo.
 If the reciprocity bill passes 1t Is es- timated that he revenues of the gov ernment will be reduced ten millions. The expenses of government are in creasing and the income decreasing. Reductions of revenue from alcohol amount to 70 millions. Large reduc-
 
 A claim is made that the State needs the tax. A State income tax has not been successful in the past. It cannot be collected on account of personal affiliations, deception. and changing residence. But the general government can collect by adopting the stoppage at source plan which prevails in England.
 SAt this point the Senator disposed of the argument that the income tax amendment ought not to be accepted because State bonds might be taxed.
 He also made the point that the in- come of Connec tdclt Is derived from property outside of the State and as- serted that Calumet & Hecfa mines have paid 200 millions dividends in the city of Boston.
 He also pointed out that 1t would be unfair to apportion an income tax according to population, because a citizen of Ohio which has five times the population of Connecticut would then pay five times as much tax on she same amour tof wealth as the citt- zen of Connecticut
 T consider the income tax a just and equitable tax, and 1t Is so considered by the principal nations of the world, they having adopted 1t. such as Eng sand, Prussia, most of the German States, Austria, Italy and Switzerland and a number of the smaller States. And an income tax bill has passed fi1e Chamber of Deputies in France and has been sent to the Senate.
 All the political economists and all those that has given this question any study or consideration are in favor of it. N%
 Why should the large income escape taxation? Why should ROckefeller's S Is million income from Standard Oil. not considering his other sources of nd ru
 It is a well known fact that large estates are never. taxed to their full .vall,e. During Russell Sage's life his Eproperty was listed at two million. At s1his death. his estate was appraised at Eco millions. a
 And when we realize how some of the large incomes are wasted we can- tilot help but feel that they should 9lave paid some portion of that income flor the expense of the government.
 Some say income tax is inquisitor- !, iaL Not any more so than property ! or any other kind of tax. Assessors must find property.
 favor an income tax. I believe that 1t is just and fair and equitable land 1t places the burden of maintain ling the government on those who are tbest able to pay for the maintenance.
 It taxes the income easily got at. And who is there that would feel the 
 lover 5000? The amount would be a Imere bagatelle. although the exemp- ftions will be filed by Congress, and our representatives will look after our interests.
 And surely a man can pull along on $4.s2o year and secure all the snecessaries of life and many of the comforts.
 If a poor man earning three or four dollars a day can support and educate a family, certainly a man on $5,000 salary and upwards will not be de- prived of the necessaries of life.
 We all know that the rich mans property, whether in real estate or personal property, is never taxed at full or fair valuation
 Whereas, the poor man, if able to support his family and lay by a little ,rioney and invest 1t in a house, is al rSays taxed at full valuation, because it is easy to get at the value of the 'aroperty.
 do not expect that my opinion or 1ny reasons given for this bill provid- ing for an income tax will have the weight and influence that the opinions of men would have who have given this matter a lifelong study and con- eideration.
 Therefore, I desire to read for the benefit of the Senators some of the arguments made in 1872 against the repeal of the income taJ law. These arguments were made by men who at that time had no peers in our nation as leaders and statesmen. They were the great men of that time, and their opinions were considered carefully, and they carried weight with them.
 I also want to read to you the opin- ions of two or three of the dissenting judges on the decision of the Supreme court as to the constitutionality of the income tax law.
 Income Tax collected up to 1872 and then Repealed after great oppo- fition from wise and far seeing Statesmen.
 Mir President: l want to call the ISenates attention to the names of those that opposed repeal, nd read you wht they said on that subject.
 Senator John Sherman, of Ohio, on the 22d day of June, 1870, while Tn the Senate, speaking against the re- peal of the then income-tax law, said, in part:
 They have declared it to be invid- ious. Well. sir. all taxes are invid- ious. They say it is inquisitorial. Take the ordinary taxes levied in the States of Ohio. and in all the States in this country, by the Statutes Tt Large. Do they not require the as- sessor to go around and ascertain the personal property of every citi- zen? Is that not inquisitoria1? $
 Every tax is inquisitorial, and the least inquisitorial of all is the in como tax