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.)
-.
