July 12, 1909

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to call up and to consider in the House the resolution of the Senate ( .. J. R. 40) proposing to amend the Constitution of the United , ' t nt s in regard to taxes on incomes. It was reported from the Comm itte e o n Ways · and Means this morning favorably H. Il Rept. Ko. 15).

The SPEAKER The gentleman from New York asks unaniruou · co11 ent to consider the following Senate joint resolution, w llieh the Clerk will re po rt.

Th J e rk r ea d as follows: :J oint resolution (S. J. R. 40) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

R e olrecl by tlle Senate ancl House of R ep1·esentativcs of th e United States o f America 1n Congress a sembled (two-thirds of each Hou e co 11c11 1Ti11g th erein), That the following article is proposed as an a.mendment to . the on ·titution of the United States. which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of th e several State . , shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitut; .o n :

"Article :xvr. 'l'he o ngl'ess shall have power to la y and collect taxes on in comes, from whatever som·ce derived, without apportionment ~i~~!•!!; the severa l States, and without regard to any census or enumeral\Ir. CLARK of Mis ouri. l\Ir . Sp ea ker i s the O'eutlernan from New York caJlino- ~hi up under suspension of the rule , or in th e ordinary cour e of procedure?

l\Ir . PA.YNE. Ilather than wait for the proce s of getting at it by the rules to-day, I am simply asking to call it up at this time.

Mr. CLARK of l\Iissouri. IIow much time can we ha\e for of war? debate?

.. lr. PA.YNE. l\Ir. Speaker, I am willing to haYe any reasonable time for debate, if we can have a conclusirn l'Ote upon the subject to-day. As fa r as I am concerned personally, my pre ence is greatly desired at tlle other end of the Capitol, or at least it seems nece ary, on account of the conference on the tariff bill.

l\lr. CLARK of l\Iissouri. Do you know wheth e r my presence and that of the other Democratic conferees i there? [Laughter.]

Mr. P.AYNE. My friend is more fa\orably situated, as far a that is concerned, so that he can attend to his duties in the House much more easily than I can. [Laugllter.]

::Ur. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask for two hours on a ide, one-half of the time to be controlled by anybody who may be named on that side, and one-half by my elf .

l\Ir. PAYNE. Well, I will sugge t an hour and a half.

Mr. CLARK of Mi souri. Let us have two hour .

l\fr. PAYNE. There is very little time a ked for as far as I am concerned. I think I can say all I have to say about it in firn minutes myself. , l\Ir. CLARK of l\fi souri. I can, too; but I riev~· had as many applications for time on any proposition since I have been here as I ba\e on this.

l\Ir. PAYNE. Then, I would sugge t, suppo~e we ha-ve an agreement to have a vote at 4 o'clock, and that gentlemen on that side have two hours of the time and we haye an hour an(}° three-quarters on this side.

l\Ir. CLARK of l\Iis ouri. That is all right.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York asks un.animous consent to consider at this time the joint resolution which has ju ·t been reported, the vote to be taken at 4 o'clock .

Mr. PAYNE. Not later than 4 o'clock.

The SPEAKER The vote to be taken at 4 o'clock; that the time from now until 4 o'clock to be for general debate, one hour and three-quarters to the majority side and the balance of the time to the minority. Is there objection?

There was no objection .

1\Ir. PAYNE. Ur; Speaker, I shall support this amendment to the Constitution for reasons which I will very briefly state . I have had no doubt, since I first examined the question many years ago, that an income tax was unconstitutional under our present form of Constitution. At the time I arrived · at that conclusion the decision of the Supreme Court had been favorable to its constitutionality. Of course the late decision, fifteen years ago, only confirmed my own belief, but it seems to me that it ought to have given notice to all the people of the United States that so far as the present Constitution is concerned, such tentiary? a law is unconstitutional; that the Supreme Court will not go back on their decision; that the doctrine of stare decisis will come in with renewed force and vigor and overcome any question of doubt that there might be as to its constitutionality, although there is no doubt in my own mind.

Now, it has been suggested that an income tax be placed on the present pending tariff bill. That has been recommended sometimes on the ground that it will furnish an opportunity for the Supre.q;ie Court to reverse i self and sometimes by those enthusiastic individuals who want that kind of a tax who believe that the Supreme Court will reverse it elf. I am sometimes inclined to think that it is because they want to believe that and want it reversed. I am not in favor of putting any litigation into a tariff bill, and especially when I do not belie\e such a proposition is constitutional.

As to the general policy of an income tax, I am utterly opposed to it. I believe 'vith Gladstone that it tends to make a nation of liars; I belie\e it is the most . easily concealed of any tax that can be laid, the most difficult of enforcement, and the harde t to collect; that it is, in a word, a tax upon the income of the honest men and an exemption, to u greater or less extent, of the inc ome of the rascals; and so I am opposed to any income tax whate\er in time of peace. But if this Nation s ould e1er be under the stress of a great war, exhausting her resources, and the question of war now being a question as to which nation bas the longest pocketbook, the greatest material resource in a great degree , I do not wish to be left, I do not wish this Nation to be left, without an opportunity to avail itself of every resource to provide an income adequate to the carrying on of that war.

I hope that if the Constitution is amended in this way the time will not come when the American people will ever want to enact an income tax except in time of war.

Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?

l\Ir. PAYNE. Certainly .

l\Ir. GARRETT. Then they would not be rascals in time l\Ir. PAYNE. Oh, all the difficulties about it would still be there, but I regard the preservation of the national life as more im portant than the pre se rvation even of the morals of some men. I think the pre enation of the Nation is of more consequen ce than it is to keep even the rascals from the temptation of false and perjured testimony.

J\lr. G . GARRETT. If it is agreeable to the gentleman from New York, I want to say that I under tood the gentleman to state his objection to an income tax in time of peace was because it promoted fa] . falsehood

Mr. PAYNE. That is one objection. I do not propo e to go into a discussion of it. We have only three quarters of an. hour on this side, and I wanted to take five minutes to state my views and position.

Mr. Sl\IITH of Michigan, Will the gentleman from New York yield?

Mr. PAYNE. Certainly.

1\Ir. :;\Jl'l'H of Michigan. Will the gentleman state whether the tariff bEl as it passed the Senate will, in his opinion, yield revenue sufficient in time of peace without an income tax, an inheritance hlX, or a corporation tax?

1\Ir. PAYNE. . Well, l\lr. Speaker, I do not know how the tariff bill will be passed.

l\Ir. SMITH of Michigan. I said as it passed the Senate.

1\Ir. PAYNE. I made a careful estimate of the rev enue that the bill would provide as it came from the Ways and Means Committee. I have not made any e timate since that time. ::\Iy views were embodied in a few feeble remarks that I made during the debate in the House, and I commend them to the gentleman from l\Iichig:i .n , and be can figure out him elf as to whether it will yield enough or not. But I would prefer a corporation tax or a ~ ‘uheritance tax to anything like a general income tax.

l\Ir. RUCKER of Missouri. Will the gentleman yield?

M:r. PAYNE. Certainly .

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Would it not be just as easy for corporations to e cape the corporation tax as for individuals to escape the income tax?

l\Ir. PAYNE. Not by any means.

l\Ir. RUCKER of l\Ii ouri. Does not the gentleman think that if we coupled with it a criminal statute which would put everyone in the penitentiary who sought to evade the income tax it would have a good effect?

Mr. PAYNE. What is that?

Mr. RUCKER of .Mi ouri. Does not the gentleman from New York think that every one of the rascals he speaks of who are likely to evade the income tax ought to be sent to the penitentiary? PAYNE. It does not operate so in the old country and they do not get into the penitentiary.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I think in this country where the people will be taxed $200,000,000 more for their clothes, it would be easier to get the e rascals who e-vade the income tax into the penitentiary.

.l\Ir. PAYNE. Well, the gentleman from .l\Ii ouri has stated his opinion, and I shall have to decline further interruption on account--0f my limited time. ' Now, l\Ir. Speak er, because, in my mind, there is no other way to get this war power that may be sometimes vital to the existence of the country, I am persuaded to vote for this constitutional amendment which will put it in the province of the Congress of the United States to enact legislation upon this may pass. ubject and, as I said a moment ago, I hope it will never be employed for any other purpose ; but whether it is or not, I deem it essential to the future existence of the Nation, should more time. we have a great war, which God forbid, that we have the power to exhaust every resource of taxing our people to carry on the war with vigor, with the prestige that has hitherto come to the .American people, and that we should not have the national hand paralyzed because of its inability under the Constitution of the United States to reach its hand out and gather these taxes and all others from the citizens of the United States, whose Government we are protecting. Mr. Speaker, T reserve the balance of my time. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Missouri does not mind, I would like to yield firn minutes to the gentleman from l\las a­ chusetts [l\Ir. McCALL].

l\lr. :McCALL. Mr. Speaker, I imagine that nothing which I may be able to say will defeat the prearranged programme and prevent the passage of the joint resolution, but for the House to perform its part in such a solemn transaction as amending the Constitution of the United States without having the form of the amendment seriously considered by one of its commit t ees strikes me as a proceeding of extraordinary levity. Mr. Speaker, if I were in favor of an income-tax amendment, I should be decidedly opposed to an amendment in the form of .that which is now pending before the House. By doing away with the rule of apportionment it abrogates one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. What was the great historic contest in the Constitutional Convention? It was between the small States, selfishly struggling for more than their fair share of power, and the l a rge States, representing the Democratic principle and trying to preserve some measure of equality between the man in a large State and the man in a small one.

The small States finally gained an equal representation in the Senate, with the great powers of that body. That is the price the large State s paid for the Constitution, but they managed to secure some compensation, and there was c o nferred upon the Representatives chosen according to population peculiar powers over taxation, which is especially related to liberty. The House of Representatives was not merely given the power to originate all bills raising revenue, but it was provided by the very clause of the Constitution that fixed the basis of representation that Representatives and direct taxes should be apportioned among the States according to population . The framers of the Constitution did not desire to expose the small States to the temptation of combining and plundering the large States. They thought so much of this limitation upon taxation that they again referred to it in the Constitution, and there are two clauses which provide that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States according to population. They did not withhold the power to impose direct taxes, but they declared that when they were imposed the people of the . small States should pay their share, man for man. with the people of the large States. Now, the undemocratic feature of our Constitution has been vastly augmented by the admission of small States.

In the Constitutional Convention, States having only one-third of the population of the country were in a majority; but to-day States having only one-sixth of the population elect a majority of the Senate, and yet it is proposed to throw away incontinently this important safeguard of the Constitution, this great democratic feature, and the Democratic party proposes to take a hand and throw the rule of apportionment to the winds. I submit that if you are going - to give up the rule of apportionment, you should confer upon the representatives of the people some compensating power to take the place of the safeguard you take away. You should at least provide that the House should . have the sole power to originate income-tax · bills and that the Senate should not amend them; that its power should be confined either to vetoing or accepting them--;--the power which the House of Lords in Great Britain has in reference to all tax bills.

The gentleman from New York, my friend Mr. PAYNE, represents the greatest State in the Union. It seems to me he should be peculiarly concerned here, as his predecessors were · in the great constitutional convention, to preserve in some degree the democratic principle. I have great respect for the man in Nevada, but it viola.tes every notion of equality to give him in important processes of taxation 200 times the power of the man in New York. It is said that this tax is f.or use in time of war. That argument was made with great force in another body, but it strikes me that the ingemi:ousness of it would be more apparent if it were not propo ed at this very moment, in a time of profound peace, to stretch the C o nstitn- pla u se. ] tion in order to pass as much of an income-tax measure as we

The SPEAKER. . The time of the gentleman has expired .

Mr. McCALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like a couple of minutes l\Ir. PAYNE. I yield to the gentleman. Does he require more time than that?

Mr. McCALL. I think two or three minutes more.

Mr. P A.Y1'TE . I yield five minutes to the gentleman .

Mr . McCALL. So, Mr. Speaker, while they say that they desire this power for time of war, we see to-day in time of peace an attempt to exercise the power to its utmost extent. And why not, then, limit it expressly to time of war? Why not, for the just protection and the equal rights of the people of New York and of the other great States of this Union, five of which probably will pay nine-tenths of an income tax, although they will have only one-ninth of the representation in the Senate tewhy not preserve the limitation upon the power of the Cen t ral Go-vernment? Why drag every governmental power to Washington so that a vast centralized government may devour the States and the liberty of the individual , al as well? I say this amendment should be more carefully considered than it has yet been considered.

It i liable to go into the Constitution of the United States and be forever a part of the organic law in the form in which it has been. I may almost say, extemporized or improvised . The character of the argument which has been made, that t his tax is for use in time of war, leads me to observe that the chief purpose of the tax is not financial, but social. It is not primarily to raise money !or the State, but to regulate the citizen nntl to regenerate t he moral nature of man. The individual citizen will be called on to lay bare the innermost recesses of his soul in affidavits ~ and with the aid of the federal inspector, who will supervi s e his b o oks and papers and business secre t s, he may be made to be good, according to the notions of virtue at the moment prevailing in Washington. And, incidentally, and since every business secret in the country can be had access to by the authorities at Washington, the citizen may be made to see his politi c al duty if you happened to have a President who confused th e attainment of his ambition with the highest good of the universe and was willing to abuse his power in order to coerce the citizen . You are creating here an ideal condition for c:orrup t ion and for the poli ti cal Jack Cade of the future to levy blackmail.

And so, .Mr. Speaker, believing that this amendment, with no compensation whatever, does away with an important part of the great compromise of the Constitution, and that it is not limited to the emergency for which it is said to be intended, I shall vote against it The amendment h a s not carefully been considered by a committee of this House or by anybody else in the United States that I know of, unless possibly by Mr. William J. Bryan. [Applause.]

Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the gentleman yield for a question, if be has the time 'l

Mr. McCALL. I have completed what I have to say, but I shall be -very glad to hear · the gentleman's question.

Mr. DOUGLAS . I want to ask the gentleman what he has to say as to this question iii connection with his remarkswhether or not a large preponderance of the membership of the House from large States will not be a sufficient safeguard when the time comes to pass an income-tax amendment?

Mr. McCALL. That is merely in the form of veto . TheY. do not have their proportionate share in legislation, when you take into account the whole legislative machine.

Mr . DOUGLAS. They have in the House .

Mr. McCALL. It would a.mount to a mere obstructive power, but the tax can be remade in the Senate and mixed up with other taxes, and the Representatives may be obliged to yield. I want to say, if my time has not expired, that you had better wait-- .....

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr . McCALL. My time has expired, and I would ask a moment more.

l\Ir. PAYNE. I have given the gentleman ten minutes.

Mr . McCALL. Will you not add one minute more?

Mr. PAYNE. Oh, well, I yield to the gentleman for one moment.

Mr. McCALL. I desire to say this, Mr . Speaker, that it may be well to wait, before we pass this amendment, and witness the operation of the proposed corporation-tax amendment, if it shall ever pass. I believe, from the signs that we have already witnessed, that it is prede tined to as great a measure of public odium and unpopularity as any tax bill ever received . [Ap - l\Ir. PAYNE. I yield one minute to the gentleman from Minnesota. [l\Ir . TAWNEY].

Mr. TA \VNEY . In that minute I want to announce to the House that on Thursday next I shall present an appropriation bill carrying certain very necessary deficiency appropriations, and I tru t that we will have a full attendance on that day.

Mr. CL.ARK of Missouri. I desire to ask the gentleman this question: Suppose it should turn out that the House adjourns until to-morrow or the next day, then are we to understand that you are going to present it on Thursday?

.Mr. TAWNEY. I am going to present it on Thursday.

.Mr . CLARK of Missouri. You are going to present it Thursday, anyhow?

Mr. TAWNEY. l\Iy understanding is that if the House is in session to-morrow, it will only be for debate, and Thursday will . be for the transaction of business, and I trust we will have a full attendance.

l\lr. CLARK of l\1i ouri. I only wanted to understand .

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from New York reserve his time?

l\Ir. PAYNE . I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I yield to the gentl e man from Texas [l\Ir. HENRY] for half a minute.

Mr. HENRY of Texas. In that half minute I just desire to offer an amendment in my time and have it pending. It is to strike out of line 5 the words "which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States" and insert "which, ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the several States."

The SPEAKER. The gentleman can give notice and have the amendment read.

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. I give whatever notice is necessary. l\Ir. PAYNE. This is presented for the information of the House.

'l'be SPEAKER. It is for the information of the House.

l\fr. HENRY of Texas. I ask that it be read at the Clerk's desk, and give notice that I will offer it.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would suggest that, by unanimou s corn;;ent, the House is to vote at 4 o'clock on the closing of d e bate.

l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. l\Ir. Speaker, I ask that I may be notified when I shall have occupied ten minutes. .My own opinion is that there is not very much nece sity for speech making on this occasion or on this proposition. The income tax is a Democratic propo s ition. We put it in the tariff bill of 1894. A very large majority of us have been in favor of it ever since. We wrote it in our platform of 1 96 and have advocated it ever since. We proposed it as part of the war-tariff bill of 189 , and Republicans voted it down with practical unanimity. We are in favor of it now; and we welcome the conversion of the Republican party to another Democratic principle. [Loud applause on the Democr a tic side.] Better late than never. One by one the roses fall, and one by one you adopt the planks of our " r platform. [Renewed applause.] The whirligig of time brings its own reYenge . What was denounced by Republicans in 1 !)6 as anarchy is advocated by them to-day as sound political go ;pel. My own judgment is that the wit of man never devi ed a · fairer or juster tax than a graduated income tax. Individually I am in favor of the Bailey-Cummins proposition. I do not believe that the lt5 , 000 exemption is too much. If I were to change the size of the exemption at all, I would make it larger rather than smaller.

The exemption is not for the benefit of the man who is exempted, but all exemption laws, in the States or in the Nation, are for the benefit of the public. It is monstrous to say-I do not care what the gentleman from Massachusetts or anybody else says-it is monstrous to say that the accumulated wealth . of this country shall not bear its just proportion of the public burdens. [Loud general applause.] E\erybody-everybody in this House, at le a st-knows that we had two income-tax laws prior to the act of 1 94. They were held to be constitutional. I have said hundred of times-and I repeat it now-that the decision on the inc Q me-tax law of 1894, when the peculiar circum tances und e r which it was rendered are considered, is one of the great blots on the judicial system of this country. I believe as firmly a I believe that I must die some day that if we had been engaged in a war with a first-class power in 189 , instead of in a war with Spain, Congress would " incontinently," as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCALL] says, have reenacted the income-tax law of 1894 and that the Supreme Court of the United States would have held it to be constitutional. [Applause.] Nobody had any doubt of that then, and nobody has any doubt of that now. The vast majority of the American people have always believed the incometa.x law of 1894: constitutional We would much prefer making an income tax · part of the tariff bill than to vote for this joint resolution . submitting an income-tax constitutional amendment for ratification to the States; but as it has been demonstrated that we can not secure the passage of an income tax through this Congress we will do the best thing possible under the circumstances and vote for this joint resolution, hoping for the best. Gentlemen need not deceive themselves. The whole situation is that there is going to be a historical fight, a bitter fight, a. fight to the finish, in various States on this proposition if this House agrees to the propo ition submitted by the Sen- ate. Democrats will force the fighting all along the line, as they have forced it since 1894 and as they have forced Republicans to advocate the submission of a constitutional amendment authorizing an income tax. It only takes 12 States voting against it to defeat it. It only t a kes holding up the state senates in 12 States to defeat it . While I am at it, I will give my own opinion very frankly that the proposition as submitted by the Senate on this occasion is simply a scheme to keep Congress from passing an income tax now. [Applause on the Democratic side.] But, nevertheless and notwithstanding, I believe that the justice of an income tax can be so clearly demonstrated to the people that the neces ary number of States will ratify it, very much to the disgust of the Republican leaders who are advocating it to-day .

The gentleman from Massacbu etts [Mr. l\IcCALL] talks about the acredne s of the Constitution. I am glad to hear a Republican say something in that behalf. [Laughter on the Democratic side.] Of course the Constitution is sacred, but the fathers of the Republic acted according to their lights and according to the circumstances under which they lived.

We mu t act according to our own lights and the circumstances under which we live. At the time when those clauses that the gentleman from l\Iassachu etts talks about were put into the Constitution, population was about equally distributed, and wealth was al s o; but times change and men change with them, and things change, too. I do not want to say anything offensive, but this illustrates my proposition: I understand the fact to be that 11 per cent of the voters in the State of Rhode Island control both houses of that legislature. That grows out of the fact that the basis of apportionment for electing the state legislature has not changed much since the Indians were driven out of the woods. In Rhode Island the town is the political unit. When that . apportionment was made, the towns in Rhode I land were substantially equal in population; but new factors in population and business have entered in, and the city of Providence now contains more than half of the population of the entire State of Rhode Island; but the number of members it has in the legislature has not changed, and I understand the fact to be that the city of Providence has one state senator and two members of the house. ·

·l\Ir. CAPRON. Would the gentleman like to be corrected? l\!r. CLARK of Missouri. Yes; I would like to be corrected it I am not right.

l\fr . CAPRON. The city of Providence has under the constiution of the State one-sixth of the house of repre entatives, or 12 members of the house.

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Does not the gentleman think it ought to have half?

l\Ir . CAPRON. I do not.

l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. The gentleman lives in Rhode Island.

l\Ir. BURLESON. .A.nd is a Republican.

l\fr . RODENBERG. There is a limit a tion on the representa.­ tion of the city of St. Louis in the legislature in Missouri.

Mr. LARK of l\Ii souri. I - know, but it is no such unfair limitation as that. I just cited that to show how things change with the times.

The Constitution provides that you can not levy a direct tax. except by making it a head tax. . That is the plain English of it. No Congress is ever going to order a direct tax under that section of the Constitution except, perhaps, in . the stre s of a great war with a great power, because it is palpably unjust. In the course of time, . for instance, New York has accumulated property faster than any other State in the Union, unless it is Rhode Island, in proportion.

Arkansas has one-sixth as many people as New York has, and would under that provision of the Constitution pay onesixth as much direct tax as New York would. but New York has 30 times · as much property value as the State of Arkansas has. So New Yorkers would escape five-sixths of the taxes they ought to pay. The relative situation of people and of States having largely changed, there is no reason why we should longer adhere to that part of the Constitution relative to a head tax and population. Consequently, while Democrats revere the Constitution, they are in favor of ..1 -amending it so that the swollen fortunes of the land can be justly taxed. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCALL] complains that study it. this thing is being done in too much of a hurry ; that there is not time enough for debate. There ne-ver is in this House and under these rules time enough for debate. Some of us tried to remedy that evil on March 15, and the gentleman from Massachusetts helped vote us down on that occasion. He is estopped from complaining now of the way things are jammed through the House. A strange thing has happened. During the last campaign President Taft advocated an income tax, and gave it as his opinion that the Supreme Court of the United States, as at present constituted, might hold it constitutional. That was one thing which helped to elect him. In his inaugural address he advo c ated an inheritance tax. Largely through the influence of my dis t inguished friend from New York [l\fr. PAYNE], chairman of th e Ways and Means Committee, the Hou s e incorporated into the tariff bill an inheritance tax. Instead of insisting that the Senate agree to the inheritance tax, in the nick of time the base was shifted again and the President sent in a recom- . niend a tion for a corporation tax.

In fact the newspapers inform us that certain eminent Republican "big wigs," who assemble in another place, are anxious that it shall be known as "the Taft tax." Whether their zeal in that regard is because of their abundant love for the President or because they fear the wrath of their constituents and therefore desire to make a s c apegoat of the President this deponent saith not. However that may be, it seems to me that l\Ir. Chairman PAYNE and his Republican coadjutors on the Was s and Means Committee did not receive a square deal when they were induced to make an inheritance . tax part of their tariff bill. On that proposition they have been unceremoniously i;olled by the eminent statesmen who meet in another place. The newspapers inform us that, though this corporation tax was cooked up by a coterie of the greatest constitutional lawyers in the land-not one of whom knew that the income-tax law of 1894 had long since expired by limitation-it is to be withdrawn and recooked by the aforesaid coterie of the greatest constitutional lawyers now walking the earth. Th~ result of this proposed recooking may prove to be another illustration of the old saw that "too many cooks spoil the broth." Unless these widely exploited constitutional lawyers know more now than they did when they first cooked up the corporation tax, it may turn out that this whole corporation-tax business, whose sole intent was to defeat the income tax, is a " comedy of errors "-perhaps a "tragedy of errors" to some folks I wot of. If Republican Members are depending on that coterie of great Republican constitutional lawyers, who cooked up the corporation tax, for instruction on constitutional points, it is a clear case of the blind leading the blind, and they are liable to tumble into the ditch together.

So we have all three of these propositions pending now in some shape. We have the inheritance tax in the Payne bill; the corporation tax in the Aldrich-Smoot bill; and now we are fixing to adopt an income tax. I do not suppose there are going to be very many votes on the floor of the House against this proposition, be c arn:e if this proposition should be defeated here to-day , the chances are that this conference that is going on between the two Houses on the tariff bill will last until the first Monday in December. That is all I have got to say about it. We are in favor of it, and I will welcome the aid of you gentlemen over there.

.l\Ir. BURKE of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?

l\fr. CLARK of Missouri. Certainly. .

Mr. BURKE of Pennsylvania. The gentleman has stated that if he had his way, he would increase the exemption beyond the $5,000 mark. I want a little light on. this subject, and I will ask the gentl e m a n if he has any objection to stating to the Hou s e how much he would increase the exemption, and why?

l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. Oh, I do not know. I said if I had my way, I might increase it rather than diminish it; and I certainly would increase it rather than diminish it, and for this reason : Five thousand dollars ~ ars is not an unreasonable amount for a man to support a .<l family on and educate his children; $6,000 would not be an unreasonable amount; $1,000 would not be an unreasonable amount. But I say that when a man's net income rises above $100,000 a year it does not make any differ- ence to him, practically, whether you take 1 per cent, 2 per cent, 5 per cent, or 25 per cent, as they do in Germany. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

l\Ir. BURKE of- Pennsylvania. That does not answer -the question. Will th~ gentleman state, so that those who desire to follow him may follow him intelligently, what figure he would place the exemption at?

Mr. CLAR& of Missouri. I said I might put it above $5,000.

Mr. BURKE of Pennsylvania. How far above?

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I do not know. I - would have to

Mr. BURKE of Pennsylvania. The gentleman does not seem to know any more about the figure at which _ he would place it than he does about the other propositions involved.

l\ir. CLARK of Missouri. What is that? _

Mr. BURKE of Pennsylvania. The gentleman stated that he would place it above $5,000, and I would like to have the gentleman state the precise figure how far above he would place it; what would be a fair figure, in his estimation, and why he would fix it at that figure?

l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. I would fix it for the public good, whatever figure I fixed. [Applause on the Democratic side.] I now yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. CLAYTON].

[Mr. CLAYTON addressed the House. See Appendix.]

.l\Ir. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield ten minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [l\Ir. HILL]. •

Mr. HILL. Mr. President and gentlemen of the House of Representatives, I shall vote against this amendment for the following reasons : In the first place, I do not believe that this extra session of Congress was called to completely change and revolutionize the taxation system of the United States. I think that a question of such magnitude should be submitted to the people and discussed in a campaign preparatory to the presentation of so important a matter as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This propos i tion was found in the Democratic platform and not in the Republican platform on which the presidential campaign of 1908 was won. l\ly understanding is that Congress was called together for the sole purpose of revising the Dingley tariff law on the basis of the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad, and, so far as the House is concerned, an honest attempt has been made to do that. I voted in the Ways and Means Committee for a supplement to that revision in the shape of an inheritance tax. My judgment was then and is now that it was not nece~ . mry. I am a firm believer that in times of peace the revenues of this country should be derived from customs duties and internal-revenue taxes, and that if these are not sufficient, as prudent people we ought to · reduce our expenses to a point where they will be covered by such revenues; and yet, under all the circumstances, and realizing that the inheritance tax would bear hardly upon the people of my State, I voted for an inheritance tax.

I do not know now but that I may ultimately vote for a corporation · tax. My mind is not yet made up on that question. I shall not vote for an income tax. I agree with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee [Mr. PAYNE], who made the opening remarks in this discussion, that we ought to have the power to lay an income tax in time of war, but I am not in favor of giving this Government the power to lay an income tax in time of peace. With an amendment limiting it to time of war or other extraordinary emergencies, I would gladly vote for it; yes, I would vote to take every dollar of the property of every citizen of the United States, if need be, to defend the honor, dignity, or life of this Nation in the stress of war; ~ but when it comes to a question of current expenses in time of peace, i would cut the expenses of the Government so as to keep them within our natural income.

We are a Nation of 90,000,000 of the most extravagant people on the face of the earth, and yet we are now pleading that the system of taxation which the fathers of the Republic provided and which for more than a century has met all expenditures and furnished a surplus besides, from which we have reduced our national debt incurred in war time faster than any nation on earth ever reduced its debt, that such a system is not sufficient to meet our ordinary peace expenses.

Stop a moment and consider what we are doing in voting to give this Government the power to lay an income tax in time of peace. I know of no better measure of the way in which this burden would fall on the various States in the Union than to judge of it by the inheritance tax laid to meet the expenses of the Spanish-American war, for the last income tax that was collected from our people was back in the civil-war period, and conditions have mightily changed since then; but we did have an inheritance tax in 1900 to 1902.

The last full year of that tax showed as follows: The State of New York paid $1,608,000 of it; the collection district of Connecticut and Rhode Island, $660,000; the State of Pennsylvania, $641,000; the State of Massachusetts, $559,000; the State of Illinois, Mr. Speaker, paid $325,000; making all told in those five collection districts $3,795,000 that was raised out of a total of $4,842,000 in the last full year of this tax, so that of the entire amount collected from the inheritance tax in the whole Union six States paid three-fourths of it.

Let me give you a more startling illustration than that. Take tion the collection district which I have the honor to represent in McCALL]. part, the revenue office being located at Hartford and the collection district including Connecticut and Rhode Island. That income district paid $660,753 of that inheritance tax in the year ending the June 30, 1902. How many other States did it take to equal that amount? Permit me to name them to you; they are as follows: a Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Florida, Georgia, Ter­ making ritory of Hawaii; Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Indian Territory, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Michigan, Minnesota, Ne­ ing braska, New Mexico, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, brief, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, Washington, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, California, Nevada, the Missouri, New Jersey, and Ohio. All told, 35 States paid $31,000 people less than the little States of Connecticut and Rhode Island, and yet you come and ask me " in time of peace and to pay the ordi­ an nary current expenses of this Government to vote now for a con­ but stitutional amendment which will enable these 35 States to im­ to do so. pose a far greater tax upon my people. But it is claimed that the property in these Eastern States escapes taxation. That is that not true. In the State of Connecticut more than 80 per cent of all the expenses of our state government is now paid by corpo­ mission rations, and during the past ten years no state tax has been laid down ' upon our people, but the whole amount has been met by corpo- the ration, inheritance, and other forms of direct taxation imposed by the State. Every corporation in the State is taxed; every case. legacy under the inheritance-tax law, which we have, pays its I fair share.

For more than two centuries our people, by rigid economy and . great industry, in the face of conditions which would have discouraged almost any other people in the world, have built UJ;> to a prosperous community and developed a State, and have done yield this at their own expense. To-day we are spending millions of people dollars for good roads and other public improvements: . We have never asked the General Government to share with us in the dignity cost of these things.

To-day the State of New York is spending $100,000,000 in the be construction of a. canal to connect the. Lakes with the ocean and another $100,000:ooo in the improvement of its highways, and doing it at its own cost, without asking for any contribution on after the part of the General G-Overnment.

I believe that such a work a.s the Panama Canal, costing as it sions. probably will $500,000,000, is a fair and proper call upon all of the people of this country for contributions, through a general income tax, to meet such expenditure; but you and I know that there are projects now pending by which the Federal Treasury attach will be called upon for at least $500,000,000 for the canalization of the Mis issippi River and other inland waterways, largely one local in their character ; that a demand is being made for an annual contribution from the Federal Treasury of $50,000,000 tion for the irrigation of the . arid lands of the West, which means the five hundred millions more in the next decade; and that the project of the improvement of the highways of the whole country, through the aid of the National Treasury, has only been power held back during recent years by the most strenuous exertions will on the part of the leaders in Congress. How much of an obligation upon the National Treasury such a movement would in­ ~olve no living num can even estimate, but certainly a thousand priety millions of dollars would be but a drop in the bucket; and the courts, project once entered upon, the maintenance would be more costly ity for au time to come than even the original construction.

Is it fair now, after two hundred years of expenditure on our ment pa 1 ·t that you should come and ask us to vote to tax ourselves in time of peace for u duplication of. these things in all of the new and undeveloped States of the Union? It is not because our tax, people desire to avoid taxation, and, as I have shown you, the of accumulation of wealth in these Eastern States does not escape tribute a fair and just charge upon it. We are ready to vote for an ment, income tax to meet any emergencies which may arise in this Union and to stand by the G-Overnment in time of war; but do remark not ask us at least without consultation with our people at home to put this burden on them in addition to one already It severe because of local expenditures, made necessary by our HrLLJ geographical position, but cheerfully a sumed for the general time good. [Applause.]

l\Ir. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield fi've minutes to the gen­ raised tleman from Iowa [Mr. PICKETT].

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I had not purposed parti.cipat­ - ing in this discussion until I listened to the remarks of the distingui hed gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. H:ru.J who has just which had the floor. . He urges as one of his objections to the passage - of the pend'­ ing resolution that it is a matter of importance, and therefore should be considered with greater deliberation. The same objecwas also urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Ur. Whether Congress does or does not have power to impose c an tax under the Constitution, in view of the decision of

Supreme Court in the Pollock case; whether the Fed ral Government should or should not have the power to impose such tax; whether there should be a constitutional amendment the power of Congress in respect thereto clear and unquestioned, the merits of an income tax as a method of providrevenue for the maintenance of the Government, and, in all phases of the broad question have for years been considered, not only within legislative halls, but by the leaders in public affairs of our Nation, past and present, and by the themselves. The issue presented by this resolution is not the enactment of income-tax law, as some gentlemen would seem to think, whether the National Government should have the power

Personally I believe that the Federal G-Overnment now has power, that the decision in the Pollock case was not in • harmony with a long line of prior decisions, and that a resubmission the question would result in a reversal of the rule laid in that case. This position finds support among many of ablest lawyers of our country, and found support by a minority of the court which rendered the decision in the Pollock do not agree with those who affirm that the confidence of the people in om judiciary would be impaired in the event of a reversal by the Supreme Court of its former decision, or that a popular campaign would be inaugurated with a view of seeking influence the decision, or that, in th• event the court did not to the popular view, a breach would be created between the and the judiciary. r am confident that the people of this country would maintain, in the interim pending a decision, the that ought to be preserved toward our highest tribunal and accept with respectful acquiescence any decision that would given. Nor do I feel that the esteem of the people for the judiciary would be lessened by a reversal of a former decision. Reversals by courts of last resort, while not common, are not all so rare. In fact, it would not be the first time that our highest tribunal has changed a rule announced in prior deciMy regard for our judiciary is such that r would not do anything directly or indirectly to diminish the high place our Supreme Court does, and ought to, occupy in the confidence and respect of the people, or the prestige that must necessarily arily to the final decrees of this separate, independent, and coordinate department of our Government, which is to my mind of the strongest safeguards of the Republic.

These considerations are not, however, involved in the re olubefore us. The only question now presented is, whether Constitution should be amended, so that the right of the Federal G-Overnment to impose an income tax will be clear and unquestioned. That the Federal G-Overnment should have that is not open to argument. How that power should be used be a matter for future legislative consideration.

While entertaining the views I. have heretofore expressed relative to the constitutionality of an income tax, and the proand wisdom of again submitting that question to the I am willing, for the purpose of eliminating any possibilof the conditions anticipated by some, as before suggested, to join most cordially in the support of a constitutional amenddirectly granting the power to impose such tax, the necessity and wisdom of which must be conceded.

I do not desire at this time to discuss the merits of an income although I am free to sa.y that it seems- to me a fair method requiring the property and wealth of the country to conits just share toward the maintenance of our Government, more equitable by far than some of the methods suggested. I refer to it a.t this time and in connection with the of the gentleman from Connecticut [:Mr. H):LL] for another reason and for the purpose . of another application.

seemed to me when the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. was urging with so much - earnestness that we take more to deliberate upon this re oluti'cn that his words would have carried th-e added force of consist . ncy had his voice be n and his vote been cast against lle rule adopted by the House last Friday, which prevented any ._ deliberation or consideration whatever by - the- Members . of the- House of the corporation-tax amendment and other vital and material amendments nts the Senate made to the Payne bill. His objection, urged now with slight, if any, application, would , have applied with cogent force against that rule.

Let me allude briefly to the corporation-tax amendment and the manner in which it was pre ented to this body. In his inaugural address the President, in calling attention to the deficit between our income and expenditures and · the necessity for formulating :: revenue bill that would secure sufficient income, made the following recommendation:

Should it be impossible to do so by import duties, new kinds of taxation must be adopted, and among these I recommend a graduated inheritance tax as correct in principle and as certain and easy of collection. This recommendation was considered by the Ways and Means Committee, which reported an inheritance tax as a part of the Payne bill, and it was approved and passed by the House.

After the bill reached the Senate, and as late as June 16, the President sent a special message to Congress recommending a corporation tax, and an amendment providing therefor was incorporated in the tariff bill JJy the Senate.

Immediately after the bill came back to the House . a rule was reported under which the entire bill was sent to conference without any opportunity whatever for discussion or consideration hy the House.

Let me compare the pending resolution with the proposed corporation tax, without taking into account any of the other important amendments made by the Senate to the Payne bill.

The resolution is simple in construction and covers but one subject and one purpose. It is formulate"d in clear and unambiguous terms, leaving no possibility for doubtful construction It im · involves only the power to impose an income tax. All the questions incident to an income tax have been weighed and studi e d for years, as I have suggested. For the consideration of this resolution four hours have been set aside for discussion by the Members of the Hou e.

How was it as to the corporation tax? It came before tlle House for the first time in the manner stated· in effect it was an original and substantive measure of great importance. It involves a fundamental departure in our method of taxation. It involves, moreover, the relation of the Federal Government to the state governments, and the extent .to which the Federal Go-vernment should exercise jurisdiction, not only over corporations engaged in interstate business, but over those engaged in business of a purely local character, and thought by man~ to be · within the exclusive jurisdiction of the States. It is as pregnant with questions growing out of our dual system of government as any measure that has been presented to Congress in years, and one in which the people are vitally interested.

The measure. as I have stated above, did not originate in this body; it came before us for the first time as an amendment to the Senate bill; it was referred to no committee, and did not have the recommendation of any Member of this House. Yet, Mr. Speaker, under the rule which was adopted last Friday, the Members of this House waived their responsibility for this important measure, and surrendered their right to discuss and consider it. I -venture to say that such action on a mea ure of so vast importance, so comprehensive in character, is without a precedent or a parallel in the history of parliamentary procedure.

1\Ir. Speaker, that rule had the support of the gentleman from Conn ec ticut [i\fr. HILL] and of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCALL], both members of the Ways and Means Committee.

:Mr. Speaker, I voted against that rule. I did so because J _ believed that the Members of the House had the right to con- . sider the corporation-tax amendment; that it should have been subject to the usual legislative procedure; that we should have had the right to amend it if we so desired, or to dispose of it as our · r best judgment would dictate. Are we, as Members of this body, ready to go on record as conferring a proxy upon others to act for us on matters of such vital concern? How can we maintain the confidence of the people as their only direct representatives by so doing?

Ilad this measure been introduced at any other time, as an independent measure, who would have had the temerity to contend that the House should resign its responsibility to weigh and consider it? And who would have urged that the House must accept it in toto, because it emanated from any other legislative body?

I submit that those who voted against the rule on Friday last earner. were justified in so doing, and that their action is impregnably fortified by rea on and the logic and theory of our Government. I realize that the corporation tax comes before us with the recommendation of the President, for whom, and for whose _ e judgment, I have the J?rofoundes_t respect. The recommendation should be treated with consideration commensurate with his high office and great ability. I can not, however, either forget or ignore the wisdom of our forefathers in the distribution of the powers of government. As a part ?f the legislative branch, we are expected to, and ought to, be guided by our own best thought and conv1ctions-olherw1se our form of government would cease, except in name. I am quite sure the President, with his exalted and patriotic conception of duty wherever vested, would not wish us to do otherwise.

Time does not permit more than a pointed reference to the merits of the tax. . It is urged in justification of it that it is a tax on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from general partnership liability. I concede that corporations should pay for that privilege, but it does not follow that the Federal Government should charge for it, at least in respect to certain classes of corporations. The privilege is granted by the State and should be taxed by the State.

The right of the Federal Government to tax a privilege granted by a State can not be justified upon any reasoning other than the power to do so.

Taxation is one of the gravest problems of government. History is replete with illustrations which establish the rule of governmental action, that :ill doubt as to the justice or equity of a tax should be resolved against it. There is a vital distinction, from a legislative point of view, between the power to impose a tax and the justice of doing so.

I do not affirm that this tax would not be sustained by the courts on the rea oning which controlled the decision in the inheritance-tax case of Knowlton v. Moore. My objection goes to the equity of the tax and the unlimited powers given the I Federal Government over matters which seem to me to be purely within the jurisdiction of the States: .

There are many corporations organized for and engaged in business of a purely local character. They derive no special privilege from the Federal Government as distinguished from individuals. To illustrate: In the city where I live, on opposite corners are two office buildings of the same general character: One of these buildings is owned by a corporation, the other by an individual. The corporation will come within the operation of the proposed tax. I can not reconcile the collection of a tax by the Federal Government on one, for that is what it amounts to, and not on the other. Numerous illustrations of the same , character might be urged as between competitors in business in every community. . .

I am pleased m this connection to follow in the footsteps of one of Iowa's, and the Nation's as well, most distinguished statesmen-Senator Allison-whose illustrious services to his country, especially in fiscal matters, is familiar to you all. SeYeral years ago he opposed a similar tax on the principle embodied in the above illustrations.

Over all corporations whose business is confined within the · State, the State should have exclusive juri diction to tax the corporate privilege .. Any other rule would, in my judgment, be an mvas10n of the Just powers of the States. On the contrary, there are many corporations whose business is inter tate in character. As to them a different rule should apply, both as to control and taxation.

I noticed in the papers a few days ago mention of an address delivered by the Attorney-General before the State Bar Association of Kentucky, in which he was reported as fa-voring the enactment of a national incorporation statute for corporations engaged in interstate busine s. I have long entertained the opinion that some plan of this nature would ultimately be adopted, and would afford the means of settling some of the problems in which the people are so vitally interested, the solution of which, under the present system, we have been unable to reach. If such a plan were to be adopted, the Federal Go-v­ ernment could tax for the privilege granted to such corporations. Of what benefit could it possibly be to the Federal Government, under the proposed law, to examine or require reports from local corporations that are in no way involved in the administration of the federal laws?

It is neces ary to the future harmony and integrity of our institutions that we maintain as nearly as possible a perfect balance between the powers of the Federal Government and the state government. ·

I have grave misgivings whether this tax will reach the end desired, and not fall upon the individual of small and limited means, and in a considerable percentage on the consuming wage-

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

1\lr. PAY1'TE. I yield two minutes more to the gentleman.

Mr. PICKE'lv.r. I regret that time does not permit a · further discus ion. That there may be no misunderstanding my position, I repeat . that I concede the wisdom, propriety, and necessity o~ the Federal Government bringing the large corporations of this country engaged in interstate business under its more immediate and efficient control. This opinion I have entertained . for years, but it seems to ' me that the provisions of the proposed law are too unlimited, and are an invasion of the rights that properly inhere in the States.

I hope that if this law · is to ·· be : enacted, we will yet have an opportunity to . discuss its merits and to amend it in some respects. The original measure has already , been amended · as a result of the opposition . interposed to it, . so as to exempt labor organizations and fraternal beneficiary · societies, agricultural associations, and building and loan associations, but there are other amendments that ought to . be made which r: have not the. time to discuss.

I submit that in view of- the importance of the corporation- tax amendment, that both wisdom and our duty dictate but one course . to pursue, and that is, to defer action until : we can give . to it the study, the research, . the analysis, and the. consideration to which it is justly entitled. [Appia.use.]

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. JAMES. M1·. Speaker, I desire to say that the · argument of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Hrr.r.] does not appear to me · to be one that will stand analysis. He tells us that Connecticut, which has been taxing all the rest of the people of the United States under the protective-tariff system until it hasgrown so rich, . if this taxation upon incomes is placed upon · her wealth, would pay more than 30 · other States in the Union. Ye-t the gentleman is so patriotic that he is willing to state that when the poor man is willing to give his blood or his life when- the Republic is in peril, when the battle is on, that not until then is he willing that his peo'ple shall make any contribution to sustain the Government out of the abundant fortunes they have piled up under the system of the protective tariff.

Mr. HILL. I challenge any man to say that the New England States did not pour out their blood as well as their wealth in the · war of the rebellion. [Applause on the Republican side.] l\fr. JAMES. They may have been pouring out · their blood upon the battlefields. And if they have, I deny that you speak for them when you say they are unwilling to bear their part of the burden of taxation to keep up this Government, which has blessed them so abundantly. [Applause on the Democratic side.] I would state to the gentleman that his party · is not for the income tax even as a war measure. The history about this question has been written. No declaration of any man can affect it· and the record lives which tells us that when this Government' was in the throes of war with Spain when from shop and field and factory brave men had left loved ones at home and were - at . the front, offering their lives upon their country's altar and in defense- of its flag, the Democratic side offered an income-tax- law as a part of the war-revenue measure, which placed a tax upon the incomes of the r1cfi, asking that as the poor were standing in front of the cannon on the fields of conflict the fortunes of the corporations and the rich which Ill peace were exempt n·om taxation, Illlght pay something to sustain the Government in the hour of its peril. But even in this great crisis you gentlemen upon the Republican side were unwilling to cast your - votes m favor of. the income tax, even as a war measure, and the whole Republican side- voted no; [Applause on the Democratic side.] But instead you put the burden of taxation upon the poor, w o were at home and at the front. You made them not only fight the battles, but pay the taxes too. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

' h D . t• 1 tf • f 1896 , .

Mr. ~peaker, t e emocr_a IC P a orm o used this language Ill reference to the income · tax:

. But for thIS decision by the Supreme Court there would be no deficit. in the r e venue under the law passed by a Democratic a tic Congress in strict pursuance of the uniform decisions of that court. for nearly a hundred years, that court having m th.at deciSion sustained constitutional obJections to its enactment, which bad previously been overruled by the ablest judges who have _ ever sat upon that bench. .. Wt> declare that it is the duty of Congress to use aU the constitutional power which remains after that decision, or wl!iah may come from its reversal by the court as it may hereafter be constituted, s o that the burdens of taxation may - be · equally and impartially laid, to the · end that wealth may bear its due proportion of . the expense of. the Government.

Mr. Speaker, we all remember how fiercely the · Democracy was assailed for this declaration. We were charged with assaulting the Supreme Coill't of the United States. You gentlemen on the Republican side charged that Mr . Bryan and the Democratic party were almost guilty of treason for this de.cla- ration. This was an honest effort on the part of the Democratic party: to have the Supreme Court rehear this question, . that, if possible, the immense fortunes, which President Roosevelt called "swollen fortunes," but which might perhaps. have been more appropriately called " stolen. fortunes," might bear some part of the burden of taxation in- this Republic. ':plis declaration arrayed against the Democratic party all the. rich, all of the possessors of these • fortunes. who were · interested iru escaping taxation and i transferring: its burdens to those least able to 1 bear them . Many ot - those" purses that were . tightl:y drawn 1 against , the tax collector of. the Government were willingly opened : to the Republican . campaign collector · in order that the party · that desired to tax the wealth of the · country might be kept out of power . For all these years the Democratic party has . been battling to . have an income tax held constitutional. The Republican party, in full power in · every department of the - Government, has strongly and successfully resisted our : efforts. But how times do change ! And L desire here to read from a speech of President Taft, delivered at Columbus, Ohio, in 1907, while he was Secretary of War .• It is as follows:

In times of · great na.t,ional need, however, an income tax would be of great assistance in furnishing means to carry on the Government , and it is not free from doubt how the Supreme Court. with changed mem ­ bership, would view a. new income-tax law · under such . condition s . The court was nearly evenly divided in the last case, and during the civil war . great sums were collected without judicial interference, and as it , was then supposed, within the federal power. '

That was virtua.ny the declaration of the Democ1·atic party in 1 1896. Mr. Taft was not assailed, however, as attacking the in­ 1 tegrity of the court or charged with · b·eason to his country for the utterance of these words. I merely desire to parallel these declarations, the utteranc~ of the Democratic paTty in the national convention, made in 1806, and the utterance _ of Secretary Taft, as a candidate for the · Presidency, asking for the Republican nomination in 1907. The court has changed since this decision npon the income tax. Only four members of the nine who were then upon the.. bench . are now members of that honored tribunal. Five new judges have since gone upon this coUl't. Of the four who yet remain, tw.o were in favor of and two oppo ed · to the income tax. When the income-tax case was first heard only eight judges participated in the hearing; four voted to sustain the- law and four voted against it. Justice Jackson, the ninth judge, participated in the rehearing of the case. Everyone thought his- decision would determine the question either for or against the constitutionality of the income tax. However, in this they were very sadly disappointed, for Justice Jackson voted to sustain the law, but one of the judges who formerly voted to sustain it changed his mind, or at least changed his vote, and voted against the law, making it five to four in the decision · holding the income tax unconstitutional. ...