Evening star., 1951-07-08
Amendment
Continued From First Page.)


Continued From First Page)
Federal tax ceiling be able to
amend the Constitution by a
method never before successful?
Does the drive for a tax roof
represent public sentiment or is it
a campaign in behalf of big tax
payers?
How will the pending tax bill be
affected by State legislative prog
ress toward obtaining Federal
constitutional amendment to re-
strict tax rates?
Backed by 20 States.
Utahs recent action brought
to 20 the number of States that
have adopted resolutions for the
calling of a constitutional con-
Ivention. Such convention pre-
sumably would propose a consti-
tutional amendment limiting to
25 per cent the amount of per-
sonal or corporation income that
could be taken by Federal taxa
ton. The suggested amendment
also would apply to taxes on in
heritances and gifts.
Besides the customary way of
amending the Constitution by
State ratification of con-
gressional resolution, there is
method by which Congress "shall'
call a constitutional convention
on application of the legislatures
of thirds, or 80, of the States.
Any amendment proposed by such
a convention would become part
of the Constitution when ratified
by three-fourts, or 36. of the
States.
Actually Utah was the 25th
State to pass such a resolution
during the last II years. But
Arkansas, Wisconsin and Illinois
later rescinded their action. Re-
publican Senator Duff, when
Governor of Pennsylvania vetoed
that States legislative action. In
Montana the Governor did the
same. This touched off a consti-
tutional argument whether q
Governor could validly exercise
veto powe in such instances.
Confident of IL More.
In any event, advocates Of the
tax limit amendment have OBJ
tanned favorable action IL these
States: Maine, New Hampshire
Massachusetts, Rhode Island
New Jersey, Delaware, Michigan
Indiana. Iowa. Kentucky. Texas
Louisiana. Mississippi, Alabama
Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyo-
ming, Nevada and Utah.
They are confident of picking
up the necessary IL others within
a year or two. The proposed reso-
luton has been passed by one
branch of the legislatures of Vir.
ginia, South Carolina, Georgia
New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Calf
ornia and Colorado. Similar reso.
lutions are expected to be votec
on next year in Connecticut anc
Missouri legislatures.
Congress, of course, coult
act directly at this session If i
chose. Representatives Mason O.
Illinois, Coudert of New York ant
Curtis of Nebraska, all Repub
licans, have introduced proposed
constitutional amendment resolu
tions., since January.
Advocated Since 1888.
The amendment urged by Mr.
Curtis would limit the Fedora
taxing power to IA per cent of tn
national income. The Mason ant
Coudert bills are in line with tn
25 per cent tax limitation advo
Gated since 1888 by the American
Taxpayers Association, and witt
the type of resolution envisione'
in the State legislative moves.
In event of war Congress, by
vote of three-fourths of the tots
membership of each branch coul
suspend for a year at time tn
limitation on tax rates on income
the Mason resolution states.
Advocates of the propose
constitutional amendment declar
that soaring taxes in recent year
not only intensifies the "soak-the
rich" idea but harms taxpayers g
all economic levels.
Big Income Loss Likely.
A ceiling on tax rates, they sa.
would encourage private enter
prise, production initiative an
expansion and investment.
would not weaken the nation;
tax structure or cause too b
q drop in revenue they hold.
would promote more scientific
taxation and encourage govern
mental economy, they maintain.
Opponents recall that TreaSu
experts in 1914 estimated that
Is per cent limitation would mea
the loss of at least $6 billion
year in tax revenue. Most of tn
would have to be made up
new or higher taxes of other kline
perhaps a huge Federal sales ia
they warn.
Some congressional opponer
believe also that the current trel
toward State legislative acti
favoring Federal tax limitati
would boomerang II such