The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-06-29

I The sponsors of this amendm ent say that it was not intended that | the income from such securities | should come within the operate of | the proposed amendment, but the lan- guage before us is not ambiguous. It provides that all incomes may be tax 1 ed from whatever source derived,
 and such jurists as Governor Hughes of New York and Governor Baldwin of our State and many of the lead | ing lawyers of the country unite in the opinion that such securities come | within the taxing provisions Of this
 proposed amendment. I believe the principle Of this | amendment is fundamentally wrong 1n removing the restraint of the rule of appcrtionment, at least as applied to the raising of revenue by direct tax ation for the ordinary expenses of the | Federal Government.
 The framers of the constitution carefully provided that representatives l in Congress and direct taxes should go hand in hand and that both should be determined by the population of | the states.
 By this req asonable rule of restraint no member of Congress can vote for such tax without imposing it's fair share upon his own constituency. Cn- der that restraint he will pause and soberly reflect before voting such tax and only vote it in time of war UT SOHl0 great udtlOIldl 0AiSGHCy. This kind of tax which invades the states own resources of revenue was never intended to be brought into operation except in national emergencies. It was intended that the ordinary expenses of government should be defrayed by customs duties and excise revenue and that source of revenue. has carried us through for more than a century of national vicissitudes.
 It has not only met all reasonable expenses of government, but has sus- tained such extravagant administra tion of national affairs as that so we'll informed a man as Senator AL
 drich declares that there is an an
 nual waste of public funds of $300,- OOO,O00. It has speedily reduced a
 great war debt and fproduced sur
 plus for general uses.
 The obvious purpose then of this
 amendment is to enable Southern and Western Congressmen to carry for ward their great internal improve their own constituencies and to inn pose these great burdens upon the
 Eastern States.
 The thousands of millions required for irrigation of the western lands, for the equalization of the Mississip pi river and other waterways, the
 comprehensive plans for reforestiza- ton await this proposed power in
 Congress to impose this tax upon the thrift and property of the Eastern
 States. Is it selfish for the East to re-
 sist this effort?
 Six states without protest paid three-fourths of the tax imposed upon inheritances for the needs of the Spanish-Amer merican war, the collection
 district of Connecticut, composed of Rhode Island and Connecticut paying
 sum equal to that paid by thirty
 five other states of this Union.
 We are paying the greater share
 of the new corporation tax whereby
 twenty-five millions was raised for
 the uses of the government and the
 probabilities are that this tax will soon be doubled.
 No complaint has been made by
 the Eastern States over these unequal
 burdens, but now we may we'll pause
 when we are asked to consent to pay
 the greater share of these great
 schemes for the glorification of our
 western domain.
 We are we'll within our rights and
 the equities of the case in rejecting
 the proposed amendment. kt