;l
3
J
'JULY 23, 190
the house by Mr. Voorlrees, and by tho gentle
man from Indiana (Mr. Holman)
Mr. Patterson: And by Roger Q. Mills.
Mr. Bryan: Yes, by Roger Q. Mills, I am
Informed, and a host of others. Not only did
the senators mentioned oppose repeal, but they
spoke with emphasis in favor of tho justice of
an income tax. Senator Sherman said:
Tho senator from Now York and tho senator
from Massachusetts havo led off in declaring
against tho income tax. They havo declared it
to bo invidious. Well, sir, all taxes aro invidious.
They say It Is inquisitorial. Well, sir, thoro never
was a tax in tho world that was not inquisitorial.
Tho least inquisitorial of all is tho income tax.
I hope, after full discussion, nobody will voto
for striking out tho incomo tax. It seems to mo
to bo ono of tho plainest propositions in tho world.
Put before tho people of tho United States tho
question whethor tho property of this country
can not stand a tax of $20,000,000, when tho con
sumption of tho peoplo stands a tax of $300,000,000,
and I think they will 'quickly answer It. Tho
property holders of tho country camo here and
demanded tho repeal of the only tax that bears
upon their property, whon wo have to tax everything-
for tho food of tho poor, tho clothing of
tho poor, and all classes of our peoplo $300,000,000.
There never was so just a tax levied as tho
Incomo tax.
There is no objection that can bo urged against
tho Incomo tax that I can not point to in every
tax.
Writers on .political economy, as well as our
own sentiments of what is Just and right, teach
us that a man ought to pay taxes according to
bis Incomo and in no other way.
Could language be stronger or more pertinent
to the present discussion? Senator Howe said:
Thoro is not a tax on the books so little felt,
bo absolutely unfolt In tho payment of It, aa this
Incomo tax by tho possessors of tho great for
tunes upon which it falls. Thero Is not a poor
man In this country, not a laborer in this country,
but what contributes moro than threo, more than
ton, moro than twenty per cent of all his earnings
to tho treasury of tho United States under thoso
very laws against which I am objecting; and now
wo aro invited to Increase their contributions, and
to release these trifling contributions which we
bavo been receiving from incomes heretofore.
Senator Morton said:
Tho stato taxation In Indiana, and, I undertake
to say, of every stato in tho union, has In It overy
Inquisitorial feature that tho incomo tax has. Tho
income tax is of all others tho most equitable,
because It is tho truest measuro that has yet
been, found of tho productive property of tho
country. i
The chamber of commerce, in its anxiety to
defeat this tax, has distorted the facts of his
tory, and yet the gentleman from New York
says that the rich favor the law. If, sirs, they
favor the law, why is it that the opposition to
the law comes only from the districts in which
the wealthy live? Are the representatives from
those districts unwilling to do what their people
want done, and is it necessary for the great
agricultural districts to come here and force
upon the rich districts of the United States a
tax which the rich love so much?
The gentleman from New York says that this
tax is inquisitorial, that it pries into a man's
private business. I sent to New York and ob
tained from the city, chamberlain copies of as
sessment blanks used. The chamberlain writes:
Tho matter of assessing personal taxes is ar
rived at by Interrogation of tho persons assessed
by either of the commissioners, which Is a very
rigorous cross-examination in reference to tho
amount of personal property they have, and re
ductions are only made by an affidavit asking
for the same and sworn to boforo a tax commis
Bioner of this county.
The citizen, after giving in detail his stock
In various banks, makes oath that
The full value of all personal property, exclu
sive of said bank shares owned by deponent (and
not exempt by law from taxation) on tho second
Monday in January, 189 , did not exceed $ :
that tho just debts owing by deponent on said
date amounted to $ , and that no portion of
such debts has been deducted from tho assessment
of any personal property of deponent, other than
Bald bank, shares, or has been used as an offset
In tho adjustment of any assessment for. personal
property; whether la this or in any other county -or
state, for tho year 189 , or Incurred in tho
purchase of non-taxablo property or securities, or
for tho purpose of evading taxation.
Is the proposed tax any more inquisitorial
than that?
In Connecticut the citizen is required to givo
the number and value of various domestic ani
mals, the number of watches, the value of
jewelry, household furniture, library, etc.; also
bonds, stocks, money at interest, and money on
deposit. Is the proposed tax any more inquisi
torial than that? .
In Nebraska the citizen is compelled to give
the number and value of all domestic animals,
watches, diamonds, jewelry, money, credits, etc.,
and what is. true in Nebraska is true generally
of all the s'tates. Is an income tax more in
quisitorial than those taxes upon personal prop
erty? I insist, sirs, that the Income tax pro
vided for in this bill is less Inquisitorial in its
The Commoner.
nature than tho taxes which aro found in every
stato in tho union.
But they say that tho Incomo tax invites per
jury; that tho man who has a large incomo will
swear falsely, and thus avoid tho payment of
tho tax; and, Indeed, tho gentleman from Massa
chusetts (Mr. Walker) admitted that his dis
trict was full of such peoplo, and ho said that
our districts were, too. I suppose theso con
stituents whom ho accuses of perjury aro ex
pected to pat him on tho back when ho goes
homo and brag about the compliment ho paid,
them.
If thoro is a man in my district whoso vo
racity is not worth two cents on tho dollar,
who will perjuro himself to avoid tho payment
of a just tax imposed by law, I am going to
wait until he pleads guilty before I make that
charge against him.
They say that we must bo careful and not
invite perjury. Why, sirs, this government has
too much important business on hand to spend
its time trying to bolster up tho morality of men
who can not bo trusted to swear to their in
comes. And let me suggest that gentlemen who
come to this house and tell us that their dis
tricts are full of such persons are treading upon
dangerous ground. If a man will hold up his
hand to heaven and perjure his soul to avoid a
two per cent tax duo to his government, how
can you trust such a man when ho goes into
court and testifies in a case in which he has a
personal interest?
If your districts aro full of perjurers, if your
districts are full of men who violate with im
punity not only the laws, but their oaths, do
you not raise a question as to tho honesty, of
tho methods by which they have accumulated
their fortunes? Instead of abandoning just
measures for fear somobody will perjuro him
self, let them be enacted into law, and then If
anyone perjures himself wo can treat him like
any other felon, and punish him for his perjury.
But, gentlemen say that some people will
avoid the tax, and therefore it is unfair to the
people who pay. What law is fully obeyed?
Why aro criminal courts established, except to
punish people who violate the laws which so
ciety has made? Tho man who pays his tax
neednot concern himself about the man who
avoids it, unless, perhaps, ho Is willing to help
prosecute tho delinquent. The man who makes
an honest return and complies with the law
pays no more than the rate prescribed, and if
the possessors of large fortunes escape by fraud
the payment of one-half their incomo tax, they
still contribute far more than they do now to
support the federal government, and to that
extent relieve from burdens those who now
pay more than their share.
The gentleman from Now York is especially
indignant because incomes under $4,000 are
exempt. Why, sir, this is not a new principle
in legislation. The exemption of very small
incomes might be justified on the ground that
tho cost of collection would exceed tho amount
collected, but it is not necessary to urge this
defense. The propriety of making certain ex
emptions is everywhere recognized. So far as
I have been able to investigate, every country
which now imposes or has imposed an incomo
tax has exempted small Incomes from taxation.
Nearly if not all of our states exempt certain
kinds of property, or property to a certain
amount. If an exemption tends toward social
ism, as1 urged by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Cockran) and the chamber of com
merce, is it possible that socialism has taken
possession of tho states of New York and Con
necticut? I find in the assessment blank used in New
York the words "and not exempt by law from
taxation," indicating that some property Is ex
empt. The gentleman from New York had
better eradicate this evidence of socialism, as
he calls it, from the statutes of his own state
before he denounces us for following the ex
ample set by New York.
I find from the Connecticut assessment blank
that farming utensils to the value of $200,
mechanics' tools to the value of $200, watches
and jewelry to the value of $25, musical instru
ments to the value of $25, household furniture
to the value of $500, libraries to the value of
$200, and money on deposit to the amount of
$100 are all exempt from the personal property
tax. What a firm hold socialism seems to havo
gained upon Connecticut!
The gentlemen who are so fearful of social
ism when the poor are exempted from an in
come tax view with indifference those methods
of taxation which give the rich a substantial
exemption. They weep more because fifteen
millions aro to bo colloctod from tho Incomes
of tho rich than thoy do at tho collection of
three hundrod millions upon tho goods which
tho poor consume. And when an attempt is
mado to equalize theso burdonB, not fully, but
partially only, the peoplo of tho south and west
aro called anarchists.
I deny tho accusation, sirs. It is among
the peoplo of tho south and west, on tho
prairies and in tho mountains, that you find
tho 8tauncheHt supporters of government and
tho be3t friends of law and ordor.
You may not find among theso peoplo tho
great fortunes which aro accumulated In cities,
nor will you find tho dark shadows which theso
fortunes throw over tho community, but you
will find thoso willing to protect tho rights of
property, even while thoy demand that property
shall bear Its share of taxation. You may not
find among thorn so much of wealth, but you
will find men who aro not only willing to pay
their taxes to support tho government, but aro
willing whenever necessary to offer up their
lives in its defense.
Thoso peoplo, sirs, whom you cal anarchists
because they ask that tho burden' of govern
ment shall he equally borne, theso peoplo have
ever borne tho cross on Calvary and. saved tholr
country with tholr blood.
Mr. Georgo K. Holmes, of tho census de
partment, in an article recently published In
tho Political Science Quarterly, gives some tables
showing the unequal distribution of property,
and says:
Otherwise stated, 91 per cent of tho 12,690,152
ramllles of the country own no moro than about
29 per cent of the wealth, and 9 per cent of the
families own about 71 per cent of tho wealth.
Ts It unfair or unjust that tho burden of taxa
tion shall ho equalized between these two
classes? Who is it most needs a navy? Is it
the farmer who plods along behind tho plow
upon his farm,, or is it the man whoso property
is situated in some great seaport whero it could
be reached by an enemy's gun? Who demands
a standing army? Is it the poor man as ho
goes about his work, or is it tho capitalist who
wants that army to supplement tho local gov
ernment in protecting his property when ho
enters into contest with his employes? For
whom aro tho great expenses of tho fedora!
government incurred? Why, sir, whon wo ask'
that this small pittance shall bo contributed t'6
the expenses of tho federal government, wo
aro asking less than is Just rather than moro.
But the gentleman from New York fears that
this amendment will embarrass tho bill, and
denounces tho action of the caucus as treason.
It has never been tho policy of tho party to
control a member's voto upon tho merits of a
question by a caucus, and tho caucus recently
held was not to determine how anyone should
vote, but simply to decide whether tho internal
revenue bill should be attached to the tariff
bill or brought up subsequently as an indepen
dent measure. When a member comes to rep
resent a constituency upon this floor, ho is re
sponsible to his conscience and to his constit
uency and to them alone. But gentlemen will
remember that no revenue bill exactly meets
the wishes of any ono member, and that we aro
continually compelled to choose between some
thing not wholly desirable and something elso
less desirable still.
Individual democrats havo opposed various
tariff schedules, and have opposed them hon
estly; but tho house, In committee of the whole,
has agreed upon a certain tariff policy, and tho
tariff bill as agreed upon leaves a deficit In tho
revenue. This deficit must bo made up, and
it must bo made up in that way which is most
agreeable to a majority of tho house. If the
pending amendment providing for tho income
tax is adopted by the house, It then becomes
a part of the bill, and. upon the final vote wo
shall be called upon to choose between the pres
ent law and a tariff reform measure embodying
an Income tax. Each one must decide his
course for himself.
If any democrat who has advocated tariff
reform and denounced the present law is willing
to go back to his people and say, "Yes, the
McKinley tariff Is a crime; Its loads are heavy
and its oppression great, but I choso to make
you bear the Injustice still rather than bring
you a relief accompanied by a light tax upon
Incomes," he can settle the matter with those
whom be represents. If there be those who are
willing to see their fellows oppressed "with
burdens grievous to be borne," and yet "touch
not the burdens" lest wealth may be displeased,
the rest of us can still carry on the work of
tariff reform, even if in so doing we must
impose a tax which embodies tho just principle
