The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-12-11
Income Tax Case Opens Before
Judge X. n. Lands.
BOurko Cochran Pleads Case
Of Elsie De Wolfe.
uHC0NSI NSIIIuTIOHM, HE SAYS
Declares It Violates the -Four.
teenth Amendment,
Chicago Bank Appears IN The
Role Of Defendant

Chicago. Dec. 1.-THE suit to to0G tho
income tax law was thrown out Of the
United States district court here today
by Judge Landis. who decided that ~
had no Jurisdiction.
Tho effect Of this decinion which d0eD
not involve tho constitutionality or un.
constttutionality Of the law. u TO uon0
the case direct to the supreme court o9
the United States
Chicago. Dec. 1l.-Attack ON the
constitutionality OF the income tar
law was begun here today before
Judge K n. lands in the United
States district court for the northern
district of Illinois. The medium ..
lected for tho test u q suit at law In
which Elsie De Wolfe. former acfroas.
citizen Of New York. now Q roGidone
In Versailles. France. II plainti3 ana
the Continental ana Commercial Trust
and Savings bank Of Chicago u de-
fendant. Bourke Cochran OF New
York and Colin C. II. Fyuo or Chicago
appeared for Miss Do Wolfe ana LeVy
Mayer OF Chicago for the hank.
Miss De Wolfe, owner Of thirty OF
the Appalachian Power compauys
nve per cent bonds. was refused pay
ment OF interest duo on the bonds Doo
1 last by the bank because she had
not filed the certificate Of oWneruhip
which the bank claims II required 6y
the income tax law. Her suit - for
interest due and damages In the sum
Of $1,000.
In the presentation OF his case At
norney Cochran asserted that the law
taxes only 426,000 persons out OF =
population Of S0.000,000, which tax he
said was imposed ON them without
their consent by the untaxed rematn-
der OF the population. Even IL com
gress had the right to impose this tar.
the lawyer said. 1t was Graded accord
ing to Incomes at such gross ineouali-
ties as to violate the constitution. His
clients income. he satd. was more
tsaan $3e.0eo@ yoar, ON which pha =
taxed one per-cent On all above 81, Gee
ana an additfpnal tx Of 1 per cent
on an in sxceas ok 330.660. Ne asssrt-
ed II this ratio were eQuitab1y pur-
sued the income from the tax would
be $75O.00O.000, q sum practically
| sufficient to defray all government ex-
penses. By its present ineoualitfes
he added. the income would not b
much more than $sO.00O,0 900.
Attorney Cochran insisted that II all
incomes were taxed in the Same ratio
as that Of the plaintiff incomes Of
more than $260.000 would be subject
to penalty Of ten per cent instead OF
five per cent: those Of 100000 or
more to q penalty or 20 per cent I'M
stead OF six; incomes Of a million
would be penalized 40 per cent In
stead of seven. A man with an in
| come of $2,500.000 q year-and the
lawyer said there were several In the
! country-would be assessed 100 per
cent, or in other words would have to
pay all income in excess Of 81, 500. 900
into the United States treasury.
! Thus he argued his client was NOT
granted the equal protection of the
law guaranteed by tho fourteenth
amendment to the constitution.
Mr.. Mayer stated the position Of the
| In his demurrer filed previoualv ~
further contended that the bonds con-
stitute "a civil contract in nowine n.
volvtng federal laws and that the fod-
eral court therefore had mo 1uriedlc-
ton. :