The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1913-12-04
ATTACK upon
THE INCOME TAX
Suit Brought in Behalf of Miss De
Wolf, Former Actress, Calls It
Glass Legislation.

CHICAGO. Dee ! Charges that tie
income taX section # tile ncw tariff law
constitutes class legislation and i uncon-
stitutional were made yesterday u . test
suit filed here against the Continental
and Commercial trust and savings bank
on behalf Of Miss Elsie de Wolfe Of New
York The United States government
probably Will be asked to AID in defense
Of the bill according to Levi Mayer. oom-
sci for the bank who sand he would ss"k
conference with Attorney Nc
Reynolds 10 discuss carrying the action
to the United states supreme court foI
ruling
The declaration. filed by Bour'>e Cock
ran Of New York and Colin FytIe Ol CHI
cago for Miss de Walfe, alleged that the
tax violated the fifth amendment TO tie
constitution in that it dcprives her of
property without due process of las. and
that il violated the It'll amendment ia
denying her equal protection under a..
law The graduated scale ~ taxation, tie
declaration aliecc- Disseminated unig~tly
/ against persons oi incomes under $lG0.UDl
a year usually gained from industrial
and artistic pursuits, in favor of those
with incomes more than 100000 a year
| Miss de Wolfe was an actress. She re-
tired from the stage IN 1905 and Is al
present in Paris
The suit was brought to compel the
bank to pay the interest on 30 bonds q
d power company which the bill statel
the bank had declined TO pay unless Mis-,
de Wolfe filed certificate OF ownership
as provided hy the inc0me-taN law. Dam
ages Of 81 900 are asked in each of iir,
counts
The plaintiff alleges that the incom,
tax j. not uniform and that the law j
therefore unconstitutional because 1t j
imposed on only 423 600 iii a population
cf about 10000 900 and the persons VIII
would pay the tax lave not consented Il
its imposition: the tax violates the ele
ments OF equality M its graduated so al
cf taxation. The plaintiff pointed ou
that she, being an unmarried woman. wa
subject not only To tax Of | per cen
on her whole income in excess Of S3Ott
but was subject to an additional tax 81
Uer cent on that portion exceeding 500
coo and less than $4,000 on addition;
! per cent between S50.O00 and $1,000
an additional ! per cent between $500
and 100000
On the other hand. the declarat a
! >ttN loitH. persons WIN incomes c&Gtti
ing 100000, are taxed only an additions
/ per cent Oh the whole excess up
! S25e. .0GO: that Is to say. Oh ~uch exec
they would he required To pay only oB
sixth the rate gf a person whose iucou
i> less than SlGO.U9n; persons whose y
, comes exceed $3.50 oG0 a year are tax,
:, only ! Der cent on the whole excess 4
, 20 100000; that Is one-tenth the ia
, levied on the plaintiff: and persons Va.
! incomes exceeding S5U9ulu age subject
:, penalty Of ouly l per cent. no matt
!. how great their auuuai revenues. wharea
j. ii all persons whose incomes exceed sic.
> uOO year were taxed III the same pr
portion the plaintiff. those with
q comes If S25n,uO0 would bc subject n
ii to the additional penalty of = Per cet
i which this statute imposes. but with
. per cent; those with incomes of $500 @
/ a year would hc subject rs penalty +
: at per cent, hut of 20 per cent: tho
with incomes Of Sl,Wo.COo would be 81
Ject not to the penalty Of per cont Il
10 per cent. and those with incomes
$2.5C0,0oo and over, instead of being 81
Iect to the penalty of Z pcr cont whi
the statute imposes, would be compel
y to pay 100 per cent, that is, the ent
excess Of their incomes over S2,50Gu g
into the public treasury