The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-08-29
DEMOCRATS BREAK
OVER INCOME TAX
BILL IN SENATE
Instruction May Make 1t Ne
cessary to Hold
Caucus
PROGRESSIVES GET
ANOTHER SETBACK
la Toilette Amendment For
Higher Tax on Large Incomes
Defeated. But Changes
May be Made
WASHINGTON


Democratic instruction today In the
senate over the income tax has prob
ably made 1t necessary for the Demo
cratic senators to hold a caucus to
compose differences and revise the
amendment to meet objections.
The trouble arose over the defeat
today of an amendment offered by
Senator La Toilette. This amendment
proposed that a higher tax be i'm
posed on the larger incomes than is
carried by the bill and that lower
one be fixed for the smaller incomes.
The debate on this feature of the bill,
led by the progressive Republicans,
made such an impression on the
Democratic side that when the bill
was taken up today ii was found that
a considerable insurgent movement
had started to amend the bill. 1t was
said that 81 out OF so Democrats In
the senate were demanding that the
tax on the larger incomes be increased.
Agree To An Increase.
Before the roll call came on Sena-
tor La Foilette's amendment the
Democratic leaders had practically
agreed that the extra on incomes OF
more than 100000 shall be per
cent, with an increasing rate that will
amount to 10 per cent on half a mill
lion dollars. The present rate car
ried by the bill on all incomes over
100000 is but three per cent. The
Democratic leaders have also promised
to give serious consideration to tho
expediency OF increasing the rate on
incomes above $4,000.
Senator La Fofiette's amendment,
which proposed "A rate starting at one
per cent on incomes OF $4,000 and
amounting to ten per cent on incomes
OF 100000, the percentage gradually
increasing. was defeated by a vote of
~ TO ~. II was the third setback for
the progressive Republicans, who have
been making a desperate fghtat To fn-
crease the rate of taxation on the
larger Incomes
Senator Vardaman, OF Mississippi,
broke from his Democratic colleagues
and voted for Senator la Follettes
amendment. Senators Reed. Ashurst
and Thompson stated that they had
been assured that the Democratic
leaders would change the amendment
and on such assurance they would
vote against the La Toilette amend
ment
Senator Williams Trrftated.
Senator Williams appeared to be
very much irritated over the attitude
OF the Democratic senator's and de-
clared that no one was authorized 10
give ASSURANCES to Democratic sena-
tors that the income tax amendment
would be modified in the way sug-
gested. but later In the afternoon he
admitted that the matter would be re-
considered.
Twelve regular Republicans voted
with the Democrats against the La
Toilette amendment. as they did yes
terday on similar amendments
After Senator La Foilette's amend
uent had been disposed of. Senator
Bristow. of Kansas. proposed another
which came within six votes or being
adopted and which commanded all OF
the Republican support. The vote was
s6 to 30. Senator Bristow's amend
ment proposed graduated increase OF
half OF one per cent on each $4,000
increase OF income up to 100000.
Senator Bristow explained that he had
made a careful estimate and found
that his amendment would raise the
same amount OF revenue as tho esti-
mated now from the Democratic bill.
but that II was distributed so that the
tax would be heavier on incomes over
$4,000 and lighter on those below.
Defeat Many Amendments.
The regular Republicans in the sem
ate urged that the exemption be lower
ed. Senator Townsend, Of Michigan.
and Senator Sutherland. urged that the
exemption be only on Incomes below
1880, while Senator McCumber pro-
posed an amendment to place tax OF
lilo Of one per cent on incomes OF
$1,000 increasing 1t gradually up to
I i-2 per cent on incomes OF 100000
and over. This was defeated without
a roll call.
Senator Poindexter then offered an
amendment to tax incomes OF over
100000 and up to $500. 600 at 10 per
cent. and those over 100000 at 20
per cent This amendment was lost
by a vote of AZ to IL.
Senator Sterling. OF South Dakota,
wanted the bill amended to exclude
exemptions for losses in business sus-
tanned through speculation, but this
was lost.
An amendment offered by Senator
Norris, of Nebraska, increasing the
exemption on account of minor chill
dren SO that It would allow $500 Tor
each child At present the proposal In
the bill is to allow $500 on account OF
each child up to a maximum OF $1,000.
Mr. Norris' amendment was lost on
y. ~< "a