Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1913-12-04
Miss Elsie De Wolfe Alleges
Statute Is Not in Harmony
With Constitution Of United
States Government
CHICAGO BANK IS
DEFENDANT IN CASE
Contention Is That People Of
Comparatively Small Means
Are Subjected to Greater
Burdens Than Very Rich,

luy MORNING JOURNAL sr1eisl lsAsEo wiasl
Chicago, Dee 3.~-The first suit con-
testing the validity of the income tax
act IN the federal courts here, was
filed today on behalf OF Miss Elsie
Devote. OF New York The Cont
mental q Commercial Trust 4 savings
Bank Of Chicago, ls named as defen-
dant In the declaration Bourke Cock
ran. of New York, and Colin Fytte. OF
Chicago. appeared as counsel for Miss
DeWolfe. who was well known as an
actress until 1905, when she left the
stage She is now an interior deco
rator
The suit was brought TO compel the
bank to pay the interest on thirty
bonds Of the Appalachian Power COM
pany, which the hin stated the bank
had declined TO pay unless Miss De-
Wolfe file certificate OF ownership.
as provided By the income tax law.
Damages Of $1,000 are asked IN each
of four counts.
Levy Meyer. attorney for the bank,
declared that the suit would be made
10 test case. He also said he would
probably confer with Attorney General
McReynolds and might ask that the
department of justice be represented
in the defense OF the bill
The plaintiff alleges that the in
come tax Is not uniform and that the
law is therefore unconstitutional, be-
cause it ls imposed on only 422.000 in
"a population OF sunie 90,000,000, and
the persons who would pay the tax
have not consented to It's imposition.
The tax violates the elements Of
In its graduated scale OF tax
alton.
The plaintiff pointed out that she,
being a single woman, was subject not
only to a tax OF / per cent on her
whole income ia excess of $4,000 but
was also subject TO an additional tax
Of per cent on that portion exceed
Ing 100000 and less than $4,000, an
additional per cent between $4,000
and $4,000 an additional / per cent
between $4,000 ad 100000,
"On the other hand the deelara-
lion stated. persons with incomes ex-
ceeding 100000 are taxed but an adj
dltlonal / per cent on the whole ex-
cess up 10 $250,000 that Is to say, on
such excess they would be required to
pay but one-sixth the rate OF a per-
son whose income is less than $780,
goo; persons whose incomes exceed
$3.50. 600 that is one-tenth the rate
levied on the plaintiffs, and persons
with incomes exceeding $500, 900 are
subject TO a penalty OF but / per cent
no matter how great their annual rev
anues, whereas, IL all persons whose
Incomes exceed 100000 a year. We're
aXed on the same proportion as the
plaintiff those with incomes Of s25O-
l00 would be subject not to the add-
iona penalty Of per cent which this
statute imposes, but TO penalty Of
10 per cents hose with incomes Of
$500. 600 a year would be subject not
% a penalty Of per cent, but to
penalty OF 20 per cent; those with in
'omes Of St.000,000 would be subject
iot TO The penalty Of per cent, but
% a penalty of 40 per cent ana those
with incomes Of $2,5OO,OO0 and over,
instead Of being subject 10 the penalty
IF per cent, which the statute Inn
ioses, would be compelled to pay 100
Der cent that is. the entire excess of
heir incomes over $2,6OO,000 into the
lublic treasury"
The declaration continues that there
ire several persons in the United
states with incomes Of more than So
100000 year wbo could be COM
,elled to pay like proportion Of their
Incomes into the public treasury with
nat hardship, while the tax imposed
hardship and deprivation on those of
mailer incomes.
Incomes ranging from $4,000 to
100000 a year We're mainly the fruits
# laborious industry, the declaration
dds and usually the entire incomes
we're expended by those who earned
hem In supporting their families.
ihie incomes exceeding St00, GOO We're
nioyed mainly by persons of enor-
nous fortune who collected them
Without pecuniary risk, serious re-
or fruitful labor,
The complainant continued that in
such incomes as the plain
IFS in such severity while allowing
ossessors Of incomes exceeding $780,
90 to escape with such a wholly
isproportionate penalty the tax un-
ertook to deprive her OF her property
.ithout due process Of law"