The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-06-28
Matter of Ratifying 18th Amendment to Constitu-
 tion Argued in Senate
Question, Says Bridgeport Senator, Is w he tn CT Wealth or Poverty
 Shall Pay Tax
Judson Leads Opposition, Asserting that Amend ment Was Result of Bar gain Between Standpat- ters and Insurgents.
(By Our Staff Corres.)

(By Our Staff Corres.)
 Hartford. June -2s.-The principal business before the Senate today was the discussion of the proposed amendment to the constitution of the United States authorizing the Federal government to lay an income tax through state apportionment accord ing to population, the dncome to be derived from any source.
 There were two reports. one favor able. the other unfavorable. from a joint committee comprising that on Federal relations and the Judiciary committee. The minority report which was favorable was explained by Senator Garry Paddock of Bridgeport, Senate chairman of the committee on Federal Relations.
 Senator Paddock spoke as follows:
 Congress has proposed an amend ment to the constitution of the Uni- ted States, authorizing the taxation of incomes in case the Federal gov ernment shall find 1t wise to take revenue from that source.
 The amendment to become valid re- quires to be ratified by three-fourths of the States A majority have al- ready ratified. Eleven are yet to act,
 
 forever binding there is no doubt but thn- fhe e1 as7Tanent will be ratified within two or three years at most.
 The question before us is. shall Connecticut join with the States that have ratified? s that Connecticut should do so. The income tax is in existence in Eng. land, Germany Austria and France and t1 pretty nearly all the great countries, except the United, States.
 In this country the question is no new one It has been under discus sion for more than 90 years Original ly 1t was a Democratic measure, and has repeatedly been adopted into the platform of the Democratic party But within a few years the justice of such a tax has been admitted by the Republican party. The amendment has the support of President Taft, and in the House of Representative received every vote but fourteen.
 The principal argument against the amendment, while on its passage in the House, was made by Representa- tive Hill, of our own State, who claim ed that the tax would unduly effect Connecticut, by taking a larger amount of money from Connecticut relatively than it would take from other States.
 This argument is entirely fallacious. Tn order to make this point clear it Is necessary to inquire how the Fed eral government is now supported.
 Excluding the revenues of the post office, which are payments for a specific service rather than a tax the great sums for the support of gov ernment of the nation come from in- ternal revenue taxes and important duties
 The internal revenue taxes are lev. jed upon liquors, tobacco and oleo- margarine. The import taxes are tariff duties upon whatsoever com- modities carrying an import duty are brought into the country from other countries.
 The distinctive thing about these taxes is that they are taxes upon con sumption. They differ from ordin- ary municipal or state taxation in be- ing paid by every man according to the amount of his purchases for his daily needs, instead of being paid ac. cording to the mans ability to nav.
 These taxes amount to about SIS per capita annually, or to $75 for each family of five persons. This is rough figuring, but it is reasonably accurate.
 It then happens that Connecticut, through its people, without regard to the property of it's individuals, pays for the support of the Federal gov ernment more than $15, 100000 every year.
 The question before us, senators, is not how much will Connecticut pay to the support of the nation, but who in Connecticut shall pay.
 Shall it be the workingmen, under paid and overcharged for everything that he buys? Shall the widow pay, and the orphan pay, or shall the wealth contribute something?
 That is the question:
 &11
 Will you, by authorizing a tax o,. incomes, remove some of this ex- pense of 100000 from the shoul- ders of the overburdened plain peo- pie. and lay it upon great incomes and swollen fortunes, or will you by refusing to ratify this amendment do what you can to hasten that time when an angered and embittered peo- pie will work in a month the reforms that should be spread over a term of years?
 It Is up to you. senators You may choose between wealth and the peo- pie.
 Senator Judson who was opposed to the layRg of an income tax in the form proposed in the amendment as 1t emanated from Congress offered no objection to the consideration of the minority report in place of the majority report. He agreeing with the request of Senator Teen of Weth- ersfeld that the test vote should come on whether the sentiment of the Senate favored the minority report or not.
 Senator Fenn said he strongly fav- pred the income tax proposition, and therefore he supported the minority report. He stood with President Taft the Republican leader of the nation and also like the Senator from the -Ir L. Al