New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-11-30
Stacker Oh6ceholders

q lose no time in doing Is to recall the
immunities which it has granted TO FED
eral, state, county and municipal once
holders. These officers now constitute
Stacker class in the nation, exempted for
TO good reason from burdens which are
imposed on other classes of citizens. Con-
gress has, in fact, created an arlstocracy
of oficeholding tax dodgers and dodgers
of military service. 1t has done this, IN
part, without realizing exactly what 1t was
doing. But in part also the discrlminH-
tons written into the law have been in
territorial.
The exemption, for instance, of all ofii-
GERS and employees Of the Federal govern
ment. of states and territories Cncluding
the District Of Columbia) and Of sub
divisions of states and territories from
the excess individual earnings tax was
deliberate. This action extended an earlier
discrimination. When Congress passed
the Underwood tariff law, containing the
Hull income tax sections, it did not vent
ure to exclude Federal officers from pay
ment of income taxes. That would have
made the public howl-and rightly. 1t
would also have violated the precedents
set in the income tx sections of the Will
son tariff law and in the income tax legis-
lation of the Civil War.
What Congress did was to exempt state,
territorial, county and municipal officers
on the theory, then generally accepted,
that the Federal government was bound in
comfy to avoid taxing the instrumental
ties Of the states. All Federal officials
now pay an income tax. So do Congress
men, although the latter sometimes claim
that they are not Federal officers.
When it came to levying an individual
excess earnings tax last September the
House and Senate in conference COM
mittee sought means of exempting them
selves. They provided that no excess
earnings tax of any sort should be levied
gin the case Of officers and employees
under the United States, of any state,
territory or the District Of Columbia, or
any local subdivision thereof" so far
as the compensation or fees received by
them, as such officers or employees, were
concerned. Note the language Mr.. kitchin
and his associates used. They guarded
against a possible ruling that Congress
men were not Officers of the United
States" by describing them as Officers
under the United States" Mr.. kitchln
apologized for this cheap taX-dodging ex-
pedient by arguing that the salary drawn
by member Of Congress doesn't repre-
sent a return from profession or occu-
nation. But what else does it represent!
II cannot represent income from an In
yestment Of capital. 1t is an occupational
gain. the same as the salary Of any
other Federal, state, county or municipal
officer is an occupational gain. 1t can be
relieved from taxation on no logica-
ground whatever. Congress merely had
the power to do mean-spirited and selfish
thing and did it. The exemption was ex
tended to other officers in the Fedora
service simply as matter of camoufage.
Federal officials Of all sorts are properly
subject to income and individual excess
earnings taxes. They ought also TO bC
subject to CONSUMPTION, unless they arc
already in military service. II is absurd
to say that the duties now performed by
any government officer or employe under
thirty-one years cannot be just as vel
N performed by a substitute beyond that
age. The Difference paid by the govern
- malt TO the indispensability of its owr
personnel is comic. The selective draft
law exempts only Officers" Of the United
States, not employees. The discrimination
does not, therefore, affect a very large
class. But it is obnoxious in principle and
should be abolished.
State, territorial, county and municipal
oficcholders are far more pampered thar
Federal ofiiceholders are. They are 9
Stacker body without parallel anywhere
else. They arc not subject TO conScrip
ton. They escape payment Of the excess
earnings tax or the Federal income tax
so far az their fees and salaries are con.
cerned. In war like this, when taxation
has become intensive, when rates are be-
ing raised and exemption limits are being
lowered, the favored position Of the
state and lbcal offceholder becomes pain
fully accentuated. State Office is more
than a public trust. II has become a
refuge from the normal obligations OF
citizenship.
Why should Congress hesitate 10 abolish
this gIaring inequality? II is restrained
only by tradition. II has been accepted
az coprtcey due 10 state rights, the
rotioa that the Federal government ought
not 10 tax income from the securities
issued by the states or the salaries paid