Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-12-06
TEST CASE STARTED IN CHICAGO
BY WEALTHY OWNER or
BONDS.
FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS VIOLATED
Artist Of France and Friend Of Nor.
gan Family Sets Up Claim That Law
Is Discriminatory Thinks Tax
Should Apply Against Unsarnsd In.
stead Of Earned Increment.

! Chicago, Dec. Charges that the
income feature of the new tariff law
constitutes class legislation and is un-
constitutional We're made in test suit
. filed here against the Continental
Trust and Savings bank on behalf Of
] Miss Elsie Dewolfe. of New York.
/ The United States government pro.
badly will be asked to aid in defense
of the bill, according to Levy Mayer.
counsel for the bank who declared he
/ would seek conference with Attorney
General McReynolds to discuss carry
ing the action to the United States su-
! preme court for a ruling.
| The declaration filed by Bourke
Cochran Of New York and Colin Fyffe
Of Chicago for Miss Devote allege
that the tax violated the fifth amend
ment to the constitution in that it de-
prives her Of properly without due pro-
cess OF law and that 1t violated the
fourteenth amendment in denying her
equal protection under the law.
The graduated scale Of taxation. the
declaration alleged. discriminates I'M
justly against persons Of incomes
under 100000 a year usually gained
from industrial and artistic pursuits"
In favor Of those with incomes moro
that 100000 q year.
The first suit contrasting the validity
j of the income taS &C: &. the federal
courts here was fled here today on be-
half OF Miss Elsie DeWolfe. Of New
York. The Continental and Commercial
Trust and Savings bank of Chicago
is named as defendant in the action.
Bourke Cochran of New York, and
Colin F'yffe OF Chicago appear a.
counsel for Miss DeWolfe. who was
well known as an actress until 1905
when she left the stage.
Thirty Bonds at Stake.
The suit was brought to compel the
bank to pay the interest on thirty
bonds of the Appalachian Power COM
pany, which the bill stated. the bank
had declined TO pay unless Miss Do
Wolfe filed a certificate OF ownership
as provided by the income tax Law.
Damages Of $1,000 are asked in each
Of the five counts.
Levy Mayer, attorney for the bank
declared that the suit would be made
a test case and he would probably con-
fer with Attorney General McReynolds
and might ask that the department Of
justice be represented in the defense
Of the bill.
Non Uniformity 10 Charged.
The plaintiff alleges that the In
come tax is not uniform and that tho
law is therefore unconstitutional. first
because 1t is imposed on only $4,000 in
a 1ot{ ton ~ on nm nm M <hA
persons who would pay the tax have
not consented to its imposition.
The tax violates the elements Of
equality in 1t graduated scale Of tax
alton.
The plaintiff pointed out that she.
being as tngle woman, was subject not
only to q tax Of ono per cent on her
whole income in excess Of $1,000 but
was also subject to an additional ta1
Of one per cent on that portion exceed
ing $4,000 and less than $4,000: an
additional one per cent between $780,
600 ana $4,000: an additional ono per
cent between $4,000 and 100000.
Where Injustice Lies.
ION the other hand the declaration
stated, persons with incomes exceed
ing 100000 are taxed but an addition
al one per cent on the whole excess
up to $250,000; that Is to say. on such
excess they would be requested to pay
one sixth the rate Of a person whose
income Is less than 100000.
Persons whose incomes exceed $780,.
900 a year, are taxed but one per cent
on the whole excess up to 100000:
that il one tenth the rate levied on
the plaintiff: and persons with incomes
exceeding 100000 are subject to a
penalty Of but one per cent no matter
how great their annual revenues
whereas II all persons whose incomes
exceed 100000 year were taxed In
the same proportion as the plaintiff,
those with incomes Of 3250,0o0 would
be subject not to the additional penal
ty Of five per cent which this status
imposes but penalty Of 10 per cent:
those with incomes Of 100000 year
would be subject not to a penalty Of
six per cent but 10 penalty Of 20
per cent; those with incomes Of $1,000
0oo would be subject not to the penalty
.of z per cent but to a penalty
of 40 per cent: and those with In
comes Of $2,50O,000 and over, instead
OF being subject to the penalty Of seven
per cent which the status imposes
would be compelled to pay 100 per
cent; that Is the entire excess Of
their incomes over $1,500,000 into the
public treasury
JapaNsee Fruit Tposs. =
49,