Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (March 14, 1902)
Pi March 14, 1902 V. The Commoner. ': F information gained from the returns made by. citizens. And now, Mr. Chairman, let us con sider the objections which have boon made. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bartlett) who addressed the house this forenoon, spent some time -. in trying to convince us that, while the supreme court had without dissent af firmed the constitutionality of an in come tax yet it might at some future time reverse the decision, and that, therefore, this bill ought to be rejected. This question has been settled beyond controversy. The principle has come before the court on several occasions, and the decisions have always sus tained the constitutionality of the in come tax. (Hylton vs. United Status, 3 Dall., 271; Deasie Bank vs. Fenno, 3 Dall., 171; Deasie vs. Rew, 23 Wall., 331; Pacific Insurance Company vs Soulo, 7 Wall., 433.) In Springer vs. United States (102 United States, 58G) the question was directly raised upon the law in force from 1863 to 1873, and the court held that the income tax as then collec H was not a direct tax within the mta - ing of the constitution, and therefore need not be apportioned among the states according to their population. But gentlemen have denounced the income tax as class legislation, be cause it will affect more people in one section of the country than in another. Because" the wealth of the country Is, to a large extent, centered in certain cities and states does not make a bill sectional which imposes a tax in pro portion to wealth. If New York and Massachusetts pay more tax under this law than other states, it will be be cause they have more taxable incomes within their borders. And why should not those sections pay most which sn joy most? , The census shows that the popula tion of Massachusetts increased les3 than half a million between 1880 and 1890, while the assessed, value of lier property increased more than half a billion during the same period. The population of New. York increased about 900,000 between 1880 and 1890, while the assessed value of the prop erty increased more than $1,100,000,000. On the other hand, while the popula tion of Iowa and Kansas combined in creased more than 700,000, their as sessed valuation increased only a lit tle more than $300,000,000. This bill is not in the line of class legislation, nor can it bo regarded as legislation against a section, for the rate of taxa tion is the same on every income over $4,000, whether its possessor lives upon the Atlantic coast, in the Mississipii Valley or on the Pacific Slope. I only hope that we may in the future have more farmers in the agricultural dis tricts whose incomes are large enough to tax. But the gentleman from New York '(Mr.- Cockran) has denounced as un just the principle underlying this tax. It is hardly necessary to read authori ties to the house. There is no more just tax upon the statute books than the income tax, nor can any tax be proposed which is more equitable; ard the principle is sustained by the most distinguished writers on political econ omy. Adam Smith says: The subjects of every state ought ' to contribute to the support of the government, as nearly as possible . in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respective-, ly enjoy under the protection of the state. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or in equality of taxation. The income: tax .-is the only one which really--fulfllls this requirement. But it is said that we single out some person with a large income and make him pay more thamhis share. And lar. me call attention here to a fatal mis take made by the distinguished gentle man from New York (Mr. Cockran)., You who listened to his speech would have thought that' the Income tax was the only federal tax proposed; you would have supposed that it was the object of this bill to collect the entire revenue from an income tax. The gentleman forgets that the pending tariff bill will collect upon imports more than one hundred and twenty millions of dollars nearly ten tims as much as we propose to collect from the individual income tax. Everybody knows that a tax upbn consumption is an unequal tax, and that the poor man by means of it pays far out of propor tion to the income which he enjoys. I read the other day in the New York World and I gladly join in as cribing praise to that great daily for its courageous fight upon this subject in behalf of the common people a de scription of the home or the richest woman in the United States. She owns property estimated at $60,000,000. and enjoys an income which can scarcely be less than $3,000,000, yet she lives at a cheap boarding house, and only spends a few hundred dollars a year. That woman, under your indi rect system of taxation, does not-pay as much toward the support of the federal government as a laboring mau whose income of $500 in spent upon hin family. Why, sir, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Cockran) said that the poor are opposed to this tax because they do not want to be deprived of participation in it, and that taxatiou instead of being a sign of servitude is a badge of freedom. If taxation is 0 badge of freedom, let me assure my friend that the poor people of this country are covered all over with the insignia of freemen. ' Notwithstanding the exemption pro posed "by this bill, the people whose in comes are less than $4,000 will still contribute far more than their just share to the support of the govern -nent. The gentleman says that re opposes this, tai in the interest of the poor! Oh, sirs, is.it not enough' to be tray the cause of the poor must it b- done with a kiss? Would it not be fairer for the gen tleman to fling his burnished lance full in the face of the toiler, and not plead for the great fortunes of this country under cover oMhe poor man's name? The gentleman also tells us that the rich will welcome this tax as a means of securing greater power. Let me call your attention.'to the resolu tion passed by the NewtYork chamber of commerce. I wonder how many poor men have membership in that body! Here are the resolutions passed at a special meeting called for the purpose. The newspaper account says: Resolutions were adopted de claring "the proposal to impose an income tax is unwise, unpol itic and unjust for the following reasons: "First Experience during our late war demonstrated that an in come tax was inquisitorial and odious to our people, and only tolerated as a war measure, and was abrogated by universal con sent as soon as the condition of the country permitted. "Second Experience has also shown that it is expensive to put in operation; that it cannot be fairly collected, and is an unjust ..distribution of the burdens of tax ation and promotes evasions of the law. "Third The proposal to exempt incomes under $4,000 is purely class legislation, which is social istic and vicious in its tendency, and contrary to the traditions and principles of republican govern ment." Still another resolution . was adopted declaring "that in addi tion to an internal revenue tax the necessary expenses of the govern ment should be collected through the custom house'atid -that the senators and representatives In congress from the state of New York bo requested to strenously oppose all attempts to relmpose an income tax upon the people of this country." They say that tho" income tax was "only tolerated as a war measure, and was , abrogated by universal consent as soon as tho condition of tho country permitted." Abrogated by universal consont! What refreshing ignorance from such an Intelligent source! If their knowledge of other facts recited in those resolutions is as accurate as that statemont, how much weight their resolutions ought to have! Why, sir, there never has been a day since tho war when a majority pf the people of the United States opposed an In come tax. It was only repealed by one vote in tho senate, and when under Consideration was opposed by such dis tinguished republicans as Senator Sherman of Ohio, Senator Morton of Indiana, and Senator Howe of Wis consin. It was also opposed . in the house by Mr. Voorhees, and by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hol man) 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 the justice of an income tax. Senator Sherman said: The senator from New York and tho senator from Massachusetts have led off in declaring against the income tax. They have de clared it to be invidious. Well, sir, all taxes are invidious. They say it is inquisitorial. Well, sir, there never was a tax in the world that was not inauisitorial. The least inquisitorial of all is the income tax. I hope, after full discussion, no 'body will vote for striking out tho income tax. It seems to me to be one of the plainest propositions in the world. Put before the people of the United States the question whether the property of this coun try cannot stand a tax of $20,000, 000, when the consumption of the people stands a tax of $300,000,000. and I think they will quickly an swer it. Tho property holders, of the country came here and de manded the repeal of the only tax that bears upon their property, when we have to tax everything for the food of the poor, the cloth ing of the poor, and all classes of our people $300,000,000. There never was so just a tax levied as the Income tax. There is no objection that can be urged against the income 'tax that I cannot point to in every tax. Writers on political economy, a well as our own sentiments of what is just and right, teach us that a man ought to pay taxes ac cording to his income and in no other way. Could language be stronger or more pertinent to the present discussion? Senator Howe said: There is not a tax on the books so little felt, so absolutely unfelt in the payment of it, as this in come tax by the possessors of the great fortunes upon which it falls. There is not a poor man in this country, not a laborer in this country, but what contributes more than 3, more than 10, more than 20 per cent of all his earnings to the treasury of the United States under those very laws against which I am objecting; and - now we are invited to increase their contributions, and to release these trifling contributions which we have been receiving from In comes heretofore. Senator Morton said: The sate taxation in Indiana, and, I undertake to say, of every . state in the union, has in it every inquisitorial feature that the in- como tax has. ' Tho incomo tax Is of all others the most equltablo, because it Is tho truest measuro that hap yet been found of the productive prop erty of tho country. The chamber of commerce, in lis anxiety to defeat this tax, has dis torted tho facts" of history, and yet tho gentleman from New York says that tho rich favor the law. If, sirs, they favor tho law, why is it that tho op position to tho law comes only from the districts in which the wealthy live? Aro tho representatives from tho.w districts unwilling to do what their people- want done, and Is it necessary for tho great agricultural districts to come hero and forco upon tho rich districts of tho 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 obtained from tho city chamberlain copies of assess ment blanks used. The chamberlaio writes: The matter of assessing personal taxes Is arrived at by interrogation of the persons assessed by either of the commissioners, which is a very rigorous cross-examination in reference to the amount of per sonal property they have, and re ductions aro only made by an affi davit asking for tho same and sworn to before a tax commis sioner of this county. The citizen, after giving in detail: his stock In various banks, makes oath that the full value of all personal property, exclusive of said bank shares owned by deponent (and not exempt by law from taxation) on the second Monday in January, 189 , did' not exceed $ ; that the just debts owing by deponent on said date amounted to $ , and that no portion of such debts has been deducted from the as sessment of any personal property of deponent, other than said bank shares, or has been used as an off set in the adjustment of any as sessment for personal property, whether in this or in any other county or state, for tho year 189, or incurred in tho purchase of non-taxable property or securities, ' or for the purpose of evading tax ation. Is the proposed tax any more in quisitorial than that? In Connecticut tho citizen Is ic quired to give the number and value of various domestic animals, the num ber 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 inquisitorial than th.it? 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 u all the states. Is an income tax more inquisitorial than those taxes upon personal property? I insist, sirs, tint the income tax provided for in this bill is less inquisitorial in its nature than the taxes which are found in .ev ery state in the union. But they say that the income tax in vites perjury; that theman who has a large income will swear falsely, and thus avoid the payment of the tax; and, indeed, the gentleman from Mas sachusetts (Mr. Walker) admitted that his district was lull of such people, and he said that our districts were, too. I suppose these constituents whom to accuses of perjury are expected to pat him on the back when he goes hom and brag about the compliment ho paid them. If there is a man in my district whose veracity is not worth 2 cents on the dollar, who will perjure himself to avoid the payment of a just tax (Continued on Page Nine.) -.