New-York tribune., 1917-12-23
Lame Alibis

The House of Representatives sWallo"e'i
bitter pill last Tuesday when it passed n
resolution recalling .he exemption from
the excess Individual earnings tax previous
" granted TO Federal officers and employees.
The exhibition was accompanied by
erimaces of explanation and protest, and
these took the general form Of indignant
denial that Congressman had ever tried tc
escape the incidence of this tax.
The excuses, unfortunately, bore all the
earmarks of happy afterthoughts. One
Representative after another stated thai
he had never considered himself in the
exempt class, because only Federal officers
were excluded, and members of Congress
are not. in the strict technical sense, Fed
eral officers"
A good example Of this ingenious argu-
ment is found in the speech Of Mr.. Towner.
of Iowa. He said:
So the facts absolvc Congressman from
attempting to exempt themselves from the
provision of Section 209. The exemption
provision would not apply 20 members OF
Congress unless the language OF the statute
was expressly or by clear implication IN
tended TO so apply. An officer OF the
United States is defined by the Constltu-
tion 70 be one appointed by the Presiden;
or by a court Of law or by the head Oh p
department. The Supreme Court has sara
in numerous cases that none others are
officers. Language has been used some
times in statutes in popular sense put u
never has been so interpreted, except uhdet
circumstances where it Is shown that that
was the intent Of the legislators. CSrtainIy
no intent could be shown in this case 80
we have clear proposition OF law upon
which ! do not think any lawyer stuo!ihs
the decisions in this case could LOT mo
ment believe that the Supreme Court Oh the
United States or any other court would saY
that members could claim exemption pc
cause they were officers OF the Unlteu
Statos from the operation Of Section 209
Mr.. Towner splits hairs too we'll. His
argument proves exactly the reverse OF
what it was meant to prove. For, presum-
ing that the men who framed the eXemp-
ton were familiar with the technical deli
milton of Officers of the United States 1t
must be conceded that they knew what
they were doing when they made the eX-
emption from the individual excess earn
ings tax apply "in the case Of officers and
employees under the United States" Mem
bers of Congress may not be "officers OF
the United States" But it is idle to say
that they are not "officers or employees
under the United States" They draw
salaries from the Federal Treasury. They
are not employees under the states. They
are certainly not employees under any for
eign government.
The text of the exemption written into
the law furnishes the clearest proof that
Congress intended to make a discrimina-
ton in favor of its own membership. If
it had had no such intention it would have
expressly excluded itself from the bene-
fits of the exemption. 1t knew that 1T was
making a selfish and improper distinction
in behalf of a sheltered class of the COM
And the best evidence of this is
the fact that the resolution passed last
Tuesday did not merely correct the mis-
apprehension" which members have COM
planned about, but also annulled the ex-
emption granted to Federal employees gen
orally. Why this retreat, if the principle
Of exemption for persons in Federal or
state employment is sound one?
In the debate last Tuesday the press was
bitterly accused of having deceived the
country as to what Congress tried to do in
the way of tax lodging. But the repara-
ton which accompanied these accusations
was in itself a confession of their justice.
Actions speak louder than words.