New-York tribune., 1912-03-03
SENATE WILL REJECT
THE FREE SUGAR BILL
Income Tax Plan. if It Passes at
All, Will Be Greatly
Modified.
DEMOCRATIC BLUNDER SEEN
Many Constitutional Objections
to Underwood's Tax Plan Point
ed Out - Senators from
Sugar States Aroused.
r-~on The Tribune bureau

Washington. March 2.-Whatever tho
fate Of the free sugar bill and the excise
tax on individuals approved by the Dem
Ccrats Of the House. il became rracti-
cally certain to-day that the first Of these
mea sures will never pass the Senate and
that the second. If II does pass. will he
modified by the more deliberate upper
house n render II less likely II condenl-
nation by the courts.
Republican Senators were disposed to-
day TO welcome the combination Of free
sugar and excise tax bills IS the most
serious mistake the Democrats have
made since their advent 10 power. II Is
regarded not only as revolutionary, as
overturning the taxation system, but as
threatening the destruction Of the sugar
raising Industry in the United States. to
be compensated for by the illusive prom
ise that tho price If sugar will he re-
duced 10 the consumer
Insurgents as well as regular Repub-
iicans ~ the Senate, together with the
Senators from Louisiana and perhaps
one or two others. are opposed to the
free sugar lii Senator Bristow. VIII"
NAV b. regarded as the spokesman for
the insurgents in the matter OF the sugar
scnoduie. described the Underwood bill
as revolutionary and "the height OF
folly"
senator Foster Of Louisiana, said; i
viii fight It 10 the end 1t means ruin
IN our state" other Democratic Sen
ators. although reluctant TO express an
opinion for publication. look with resent
ment On what they regard as an ambi'
tious attempt Of Representative Under
wood TO present an issue on which the
democrats may stand next November.
Tho excise tax measure, the corollary
NJ the free sugar bill, is almost certain
,o meet with a hostile reception In the
senate even by Senators who are In
o,,red to favor an income tax, because
NJ tho obviously loose manner IN Whlch
Il is drawn, and because, while endan-
,,er,pq the adoption Of an income tax
ar,endn,.nt to the Constitution, it is far
from serving the same purpose.
In drawing the measure the Ways and
Meang Committee 'NluSH'''
unoIiqh income tax law, which was not
doeigned 10 meet the constitutional COM
-uoa.ione which arise In the United
etatee In the first section. IT is pointed
ont nv lawyers Of high standing III the
conate the first defect is that IN the
,ooso deenition Of the term business.
This is held 70 embrace everything
about which n person can he employed
ord all the activities which occupy the
,,ma attention and labor Of persons Tor
thn nurpose Of livelihood or profit
r,nder this general head nearly every
hing could be Included. even the clip
nIn, NJ bonds or the leasing OF real es-
,a,e and the Supreme Court has express
/, declared in the income tax case that
~. tast could not be made the object of
tax of this kind.
THO effect Of the measure, even II II
sbouId pass and survive the test OF 'he
oo,r,q viii be far from that of an income
tax. 1t will not reach the bondhoiders OF
| ov.,ers of capital. IT will, on the con-
,rarv tax industry and earning capacity'
lille those who have amassed capitai
and derive an income from that source
win escape it's provisions
Tbis distinction was pointed out by
| cenator Root "Our people are sepa-
ra,,n,. into three classes" he said-"the