July 12, 1909

The first act was passed in 1794 and imposed a tax on carriages " for the conveyance of persons." Many Members of Congress who enacted the law had been delegates in the Constitutional · Convention. Its validity was violently assailed upon substantially all the grounds raised in the Pollock case and by the ablest lawyers in the land. But in the Hylton case, determining the questions, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the act. They distinctly laid down the proposition that it was not a direct tax and not subject to apportionment under the Constitution. They undeniably held that the only taxes required to be apportioned were a capitation or poll tax and the tax on land. Although Rufus King asked in the Constitutional Convention, "What is the meaning of a direct tax?" and no one answered him, yet the delegates to that convention, the country at large, and the Supreme Court, some of them coming from the convention, did not doubt that the "direct taxes" referred to by the fathers were capitation taxes and taxes on land, and none other. ·

It was then the universal belief and acceptation, and of their correctness I have not the slightest doubt this day. In order to get the true proposition in our minds, we can not do better than to quote from the great constitutional lawyer, Mr. Cooley. After maturely considering the question, he writes:

The term "direct taxes" as employed - in the Constitution has a technical meaning, and embraces capitation and land taxes only.

In holding the carriage tax of 1794 constitutional and as blazing the way in jurisprudence, I can not do better than quote from Justice Patterson. one of the four judges unanimously handing down the opinion, and assuring the bench and bar of the validity of the tax and thus setting up a landmark:

I never entertained a doubt that the principal-I will not say the only--0bjects that the framers of . the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment were a capitation tax and a tax on land .

Thus early the people had the confidence and faith instilled in them by this great court that only two kinds of taxes fell under · the apportionment clause of the Constitution-capitation taxes and land taxes; that the others must yield to uniformity alone. Hence, for all the years to come this court heralded to the country that duties, imposts, excises, and incomes should fall . · und er the head of indirect taxes and be uniform. In Congress, Madison opposed this carriage tax as unconstitutional, but afterwards as President approved acts of Congress containing the identical principle. The Government began to collect money under such laws, and for a hundred years collected many millions from the people; and such sums have not been refunded and will never be returned. Thus, with such a law, a unani- - mous approval of the Supreme Court, and thorough executive indorsement, this Republic began its career in undoubted recogni tion of the principle of an income tax, and pursued its tenor for a century without a dissent from any source to the system. At the end of a century, when a divided court uproots firmly fixed jurisprudence covering all these years, we are entitled to send the great question again and again to that tribunal. Guided by previous history and such construction by the Supreme Court, Congress has several times provided for direct taxes and apportioned them according to the Constitution.

In 1798 the total amount was fixed at $2,000,000. In 1813 the second tax fixed the sum at $3,000,000. The third tax, in 1815 , fixed it at $6,000,000; in 1816, at $3,000,000. Then the law of 1861 came and put it at $20,000,000 and made it annual. By constitutional rule these taxes were duly apportioned among the States. They were upon lands, improvements, dwelling houses, and slaves in 1798, 1813, 1815, and 1816; in 1861, upon land, dwelling houses, and improvements. Analyzing and weighing these things, Chief Justice Chase said:

It follows, necessarily, that the power to tax without apportionment extends to all other objects. Taxes on other objects are included under the heads of "Taxes not direct," "Duties," "Imposts," and . "Excises," and must be laid and collected by the rule of uniformity. Th e tax under consideration is a tax on bank circulation, and may very well be classed under the head of "Duties." Certainly it is not, in the sense of the Constitution, a direct tax. It may be said to come within e..1e same category of taxation as the tax on incomes of insurance companies, which this court at the last term, in the case of Pacific Insurance Company v. Soule, held to be a direct tax.

Thus repeated acts of Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court thoroughly fixed the definition of " direct taxes " mentioned in the Constitution. Following these precedents the Supreme Court, in the Pacific Insurance Company case, held valid a tax "upon the business of an insurance company " as being an excise or duty authorized by the reasoning in the H y lton case. Still adhering to these precedents, the Supreme Court subsequently pronounced, in the Veazie Bank case, a tax on the circulation of state banks or national banks paying out note~ of individuals or state banks as falling within the meaning ot "duties" as held in the insurance case. The Chief Justice here, holding the statute valid, said:

It may further be taken as established, upon the testimony of Patterson, that the words "direct taxes," as used in the Constitution, comprehended only capitation taxes and taxes on land, and perhaps taxes on personal property by general valuation and assessment of the various description possessed within the several States.

And proceeding with the same logic, the Supreme Court , in Scholey's case, decreed a "succession tax" to be plainly a duty or excise upon the devolution of estates or incomes thereof . Constantly adhering to their former views, the same court, in the Springer case, upheld a statute whose provisions as to in ­ comes were the same as those of the Wilson bill of 1 8!)4 . In Springer's case, he was assessed for income on professional earnings and interest on United States bonds. Declining to pay, his real estate was sold. Involving every conceivable point possible to be raised against the income-tax provision, the court held:

Our conclusions are that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complained is within the category of an excise or duty.

And so, with settled jurisprudence of a century meeting our gaze, we are brought · to the spectacle of a great court suddenly halting, turning backward, and uprooting the established laws of more than three generations. Is it any wonder that the populace stood aghast and the bar was amazed? With a mighty stroke, a divided court annihilates precedent and sets up an unheard of standard of law in Pollock's case, nullifying the Wilson income-tax law. In order that it may be plainly stated here, let me recite the action of the court :

First. It held that a tax on rents or income of real estate is a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution.

Second. That a tax upon income derived from interest of bonds issued by municipalities is a tax upon the power of the State and its instrumentalities and is invalid.

Third. The court in the original opinion did not decide the points pertaining to the provisions held void as invalidating the whole act, or that touching income from personal property being unconstitutional as laying a direct tax, or the point made as to the uniformity provided the tax was construed not to be direct. On these propositions the justices hearing the argument, being equally divided, could not decide the same. Avarice of wealth, not content with the adjudication, asked for a rehtfaring and begged that every vestige of the law that could possibly lay its hands upon their fortunes be destroyed. The rehearing was "granted and the people thwarted with further judicial shifting. It is ncit amiss here to recite a short excerpt from Justice White in a dissenting opinion that will live in judicial annals when other contrary expressions are slumbering beneath the dust of forgetfulness:

It is said that a tax on the rentals is a tax on the land, as if the act here under consideration imposed an immediate tax on the rentals. This statement, I submit, is a misconception of the issue. The point involved is whether a tax on net incomes, when such income is made up by aggregating all sources of revenue and deducting repairs, insurance, losses in business, exemptions, etc., becomes to the extent to which real estate revenues may have entered into the gross income, a direct tax on the land itself. In other words, does that which reaches an income, and thereby reaches rentals indirectly, and reaches the land by a double indirection, amount to direct levy on the land itself? It seems to me the question when thus accurately stated furnishes its own negative response. Indeed, I do not see how the issue can be stated precisely and logically without making it apparent on its face that the inclusion of rental from real property in income is nothing more than an indirect tax upon the land. .

The rehearing was granted and the cause resubmitted. For a hundred years the avaricious and wealthy had criticised and assailed the court more violently than those challenging the first utterances in the Pollock case. By all the rules of reasoning and equity they should be estopped from criticising us for now in this single instance challenging the action of the courts. With persistence, vigor, and ability the controverted points were again argued by both sides. Then it was upon final dec1;ee that the court, by a vote of 5 to 4, completely overturned all its former holdings. It concluded: First, that taxes on real estate being direct taxes, taxes on rents or income therefrom are also direct taxes. Second, that taxes on personal property or on the income therefrom are direct taxes. Third, that the _ act being for these reasons unconstitutional, there was not enough of the act left capable of enforcement, and hence the complete income-tax sections of the Wilson bill are necessarily invalid. So, again, by such decree the court overruled five unanimous opinions on the question and totally overturned the jurisprudence o.f all generations from the beginning of the Government. Perhaps the most important case abrogated by the Pollock decision was the Springer case. It is not inappropriate here to allude somewhat briefly to that case in order to demonstrate how sharp was the departure from previous rulings. In the Springer case the contest was a:s to the validity of the act of 1864 as amended in 1865. In this act there was levied a duty on profits, gains, and incomes derived from every kind of property, trade, profession, and employment. Mr. Springer alleged that the tax was direct and could not be laid except under the rule of apportionment among the States according to numbers. Here the question was presented squarely to the court and a clear-cut judgment rendered sustaining the constitutionality of the tax. In another unanimous opinion Mr. Justice Swayne, speaking for the court, said: -

This uniform, practical construction of the Constitution _ touching so important a point, through so long a period, by -the legislative and executive departments of the Government, though not conclusive, is a consideration of great weight.

And proceeding with one more great authority, Chancellor Kent said:

Our conclusions are that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate, and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.

On the warrant of such laws wars have been fought, millions of money raised by taxation of incomes from every kind of real and personal property without apportionment according to numbers, and now this Pollock case holds all these things done in flagrant violation of the Constitution and law of the land. Then is it any wonder that many gave some evidence of mistrust and discord? It has been suggested that the way is now open to another income-tax law, if we but invoke the apportionment clause of the Constitution and let the tax rest according to numbers. This plan would not for one moment be tolerated. Its most grievous fault would be that it favors a few in certain States, to the detriment of the many, and would be a gross discrimination. Antagonism to it would be instantly aroused, and it will never find favor in the slightest degree. Therefore, the decision, in effect, puts the dollar of the millionaire beyond the pale of being equitably taxed according to his wealth, unless a constitutional amendment be invoked. And here let me remark, with all the emphasis at my command, that I would not do violence to the rich to favor the poor. Equal laws and exact justice to both shall be my constant watchword. No man despises class legislation more than I do, and in my opinion he is a dangerous citizen who would seek to arouse one class of men against another in our country. However, there should be some method by which the untold wealth and riches of this Republic may be compelled to bear their just burdens of government and ' contribute an equitable share of their incomes to supply the Treasury with needed taxes. Returning to the glaring inequalities that are apparent if resort be had to an income tax under the apportionment clause of the Constitution, I can not better illustrate the point than by quoting the language used by Justice Harlan. He suggested:

Under that system the people of a State containing 1,000,000 inhabi· tants, who receive annually $20,000,000 o! income from real and personal property, would pay no more than would be exacted from the people o! another State having the same number of inhabitants, but who receive income from the same kind of property o! only $5,000,000.

Hence, I d<> not hesitate to say that by this decision the Supreme Court yielded the taxing power of the Government to wealth of the country and the moneyed class in a few States. As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature, laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is here shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law. If my vote c.ould determine the question here to-day, I would boldly challenge the Supreme Court to a correct decision and reversal of their views by instantly sending the same law before them for readjudica­ ditional. tion. And not till this course was exhausted and failed would I propose this amendment. But being powerless to make effective such alternative, as the only available avenue open to me, I shall promptly respond affirmatively when the vote is taken on this resolution.

THE DEMOCRATIC _ PLATFORM AND THE TARIFF.

It is not my purpose here to enter into an extended discussion of the tariff, but at some future day in this session, if sufficient opportunity offers, I shall give in detail some views touching the general principles of the subject and. vicious schedules of the bill. '

Having on another occasion announced my allegiance to the Denver Democratic platform, I now here reassert my loyalty to its declarations. And let it here be fully understood that no planks appear to me more favorably than those unequivocally declaring for an income-tax law and constitutional amendment to that effect and the tariff pledges. Amongst all its mandates there are none to which I yield more faithful obedience than those. When the convention avowed: "Articles entering into competition with trust-controlled products should be placed upon · . the free list," it promulgated a wise, Democratic, and patriotic doctrine. They should reappear in every Democratic platform until their righteousness is vindicated by the enactment of such a law. Hence my convictions are unswerving and my pathway clear. And to me it is certain that I can better serve my State, my party, and country by yielding strict adherence to every decree of the Denver Democratic platform, and with unflinching fidelity this spirit shall characterize my course here and elsewhere.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BARTHOLDT].

Mr. BARTHOLDT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [::L\lr. BARTLETT] in his remarks said a little while ago that in the previous Congresses all the Republicans voted against an income tax and all the Democrats in favor of it.

Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia. If the gentleman will permit, the gentleman did not quote that right. I said with few exceptions all Republicans voted against it.

Mr. BARTHOLDT. I am glad the gentleman from · Georgia makes exceptions, because I am one of the exceptions.

Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia. I knew that at the time, and would not have made that statement, because I have the vote before me and knew there were some of them who did.

Mr. BARTHOLDT. I can not resist the temptation, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate my party upon having come over to my view of this subject. [Applause on the Democratic side.] I want to say, however, as one who is somewhat familiar with the prevailing sentiment at the time, that the Republicans of the Fifty-third Congress did not oppose an income tax because they were opposed to the principle of it, but for the reason that they deemed such a tax unnecessary at that time. Of course that was when the Democracy had just come into power with flying . colors and had elected a President for the first time in many years. Their feeling was that the custom-houses should be forthwith abolished, and necessarily they had to look around for some sources of revenue other than customs, and one of those was the income tax. : At that time, Mr. Speaker, we had not yet become the greatest military power on earth, and when I say "the greatest military power" I mean we had not yet become the power which spends more of its revenues for military purposes than any other nation on earth. It had not yet come to pass that only 28 per cent of the revenues of the Government were spent for the legitimate functions of the Government, while 72 per cent were expended for war, as is the case now, according to the statement recently made in Chicago by the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. It is quite natural that when we are spending 72 per cent of our revenues for war that other sources of revenue should be looked for.

Mr. HOBSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTHOLDT. In a moment I will yield to the gentleman from Alabama. I merely want to submit a thought in connection with this discussion, and that is this, that I am opposed to all exemptions, not only to an exemption of $5,000, or $7,500 or $10,000, but I am opposed to all exemptions. I believe in equality of taxation. I believe that every exemption you make will be un-Democratic, un-Republican, and un­ American, because you will thereby create two classes, a taxpaying class and a nontaxpaying class, namely, all those whose income is below $5,000 will be exempted from that direc;t tax and consequently will be classed as nontaxpaying citizens.

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

Mr. LONGWORTH. I yield the gentleman two minutes adMr. B.ARTHOLDT. I would tax an income of $100, say, at 1 per cent, making the laboring man with an income of $100 pay 1 cent to the Government and the laboring man having :i.n income of $1,000 pay 10 cents to the Government . This 10 cents represents to him as much as the thousands and thousands of dollars which the millionaire contributes to the Government, and no one can say to him that he has not the same rights, because he is a taxpayer, in accordance with his means, as well as the millionaire.

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The gentleman got his arithmetic wrong. One per cent on $100 is $1, not 1 cent.

l\fr. BARTHOLDT. Let hiin pay one-tenth of 1 per cent; make it as low as possible and graduate it up higher and higher . Do not exempt him altogether, because, as I said before, that would be un-Democratic and un-American. I now yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. HOBSON. I merely wish to ask the gentleman if in making his statement concerning the percentage of revenues expended on war he included the amount expended on pensions, amounting now to something like $170,000,000 a year?

Mr. BARTHOLDT. I want to say that if I were computing statistics of this kind I would exempt pensions always; but I was merely citing figures as given by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in a recent speech of :tps .

l\fr . HOBSON. Then I will state to the gentleman that the at the former rate has ceased. chairman of the Committee on Appropriations included the pensions.

1\Ir . BARTHOLDT. He · included pensions; yes, sir. [Ap- tles in competition of the world. plause.] . . . l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. Mr . Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. BYRD] .

Mr. BYRD. Mr. Speaker, it is useless for me to say that I favor this proposition. No Democrat can consistently vote against this amendment. While many of us believe that under the present provisions of the Constitution there is abundant authority for the passage of an income-tax law, yet. we shall not hesitate to vote for this amendment as the only thing along this line we are permitted by the party in power to consider . The Supreme Court, it is true, held that th~ Wilson income-tax law was unconstitutional. But we all remember the influences surrounding that tribunal at that time, and the ;fact that it was rendered by a majority of only one judge, who changed his opinion in a few hours. In this manner a judicial construction of the Constitution that had existed since the days of Chief .Justice Marshall was reversed. . Many of the best lawyers in the country are _ outspoken in their belief in the error of that decision. President Roosevelt evidently had but little respect for it, as is shown in his message to Congress j.ust read by the gentleman from Kentucky [1\Ir . JAMES]. Also, President Taft must have regarded it with contempt at one time, for in his speech accepting the Republican nomination for President in 1908 he said :

The Democratic platform demands two constitutional amendments, one providing for an income tax and the other for the election of Senators by the people . In my judgment, an amendment to the Constitution for an income tax is not necessary.

I believe that an income tax, when the protective system of customs and the internal-revenue tax shall not furnish income enough for governmental needs, can and should be devised, which, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, wp.1 conform to the Constitution.

l\Ir. Speaker, how does the language that "In my judgment, an amendment to the Constitution for an income tax is not necessary," and that "an income tax can and should be devised, which, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, will conform to the Constitution" compare with his recent message to the Senate advocating the substitution of a tax on corporations for the proposed income and inheritance tax measUTe, then pending in that body? Before his election, the income-tax law would be constitutional. Now it is uncon$titutional. What has brought about that sudden change in the mind of this great lawyer? Can it be that he has been "hoodooed" by the machinations of the grand high priest of Republicanism now engaged in writing the tariff bill?

But, Mr. Speaker, this is not the only "before-and-after-taking " performance of the President. In his campaign speeches he proclaimed from every stump in every section of the country that if he were elected, there would be a revision, and a revision downward of the tariff. The people believed him to be honest then, and they do not seriously question his honesty now, but they do believe that he is guilty of cringing cowardice in permitting certain leaders of his party to belie every promise he made the people. How anxiously are millions of our Republican friends wishing for the r.eturn of. the " big s~ick " now being used in clubbing varments rn the wilds of Africa. They believe that if this hero of the jungle were again in power, the Samson of the - Senate would be shorn of his locks. · Let me here read you a few utterances made by 1\Ir . Taft in ·_ his last campaign.

In a speech at Cincinnati on September 28, 1908, he said:

Another thing the Republican party pledges itself to; fixes the date when it will do it, and tells you how it will do it, is the revision of the tariff.

The Dingley tariff has served the country well, !'mt its rateS' have become-generally excessive. They have become excessive because conditions have changed since its passage in 1896. Some of the rates are probably too low, due also to the change of conditions.

But, on the whole, the tariff ought to be lowered in accordance with the Republican principles and the policy it has always upheld of protection of our industries.

Now, Mr. Bryan is greatly concerned, and says · that ~o such tariff revision can be made, in view of the fact that the protective industries control the Republican party. I deny this. If there are protective industries enjoying too great profits under the present tan.fl', then they would have opposed revision altogether. . . .

The movement in favor of revision has arisen with the Republican party and is pressed forward by members of the Republican party .

The revision which they desire is a revision which shall reduce excessive to be no doubt in respect to the revision of the tariff. I am a tariff revisionist and have been one since the question has been mooted. At Milwaukee on September 25, 1908, he said:

The encouragement which industry receives leads to the investment of capital in it. to the training of labor, to the exercise of the mventlve faculty, of which the .American has so much, and in practically every case in which adequate protection has been given, . the price ~f the article has fallen, the difference in the cost of. producing the. article abroad and here has been reduced, and the necessity for mamtammg the tariff It is intended under the protective system, by judicious encouragement to build up industries as the natural conditions of the country justify to a point where they can stand alone and fight their own bat ­ It . is my judgment. as it is that of many Republicans, that there are many schedules of the tariff in which the rates a.re excessive, and there are a few in which the rates are not sufficient to fill the measure of conservative protection. .

It is my judgment that a revision. of the tariff in acc . accordance with the pledge of the Republican platform will be, on the whole, 1 a re.vision downward, though there will probably be a few exceptions m this regard . .

Also, in his inaugural address on March 4 last, which we all heard, he said :

A matter of most pre.ssing importance is the revision of .the tariff . In accordance with the promises of the platform upon which I was elected, I shall call Congress into extra session to meet on . the 15th day of March, in order that consideration may be at once given to a bill revising the Dingley Act. . . .

The proposal to revise the tariff, made in such an authoritative way as to lead th business community to count upon it, necessarily halts all those branches of business directly affected ; and as these are most important it disturbs the whole business of the country.

It is imperatively necessary, the - therefore, that ' a tariff bill be drawn in good faith in accordance with promises made before the election by the party in power, and as promptly passed as due consideration will permit . Mr . Speaker, the eyes of the Nation are turned upon this - Capitol and the question of the hour is whether the solemn pledges' made the people by President Taft are to be redeemed by the defeat and overthrow of the infamous Aldrich-Smoot tariff bill. It is up to the President alone to act. His party in both Houses, it seems, is under the domination of the Speaker and one Senator . The lay Members are as powerless as babes in the hands of these astute leaders. In one breath these emasculated Republicans will advocate a decrease of taxation and in the next they are forced by the bosses to vote for an increase. If all the Republicans who have denounced the Al ­ drich bill as a travesty upon justice and right would unite with the minority, I dare say the conference report would not receive one-third the votes of the House.

It is a well - known fact that the tariff law will be the product of the brain of one Senator, and however infamous the measure may be, it will receive the unqualified support · ~f enough. Republicans to pass both Houses . The 10 patriotic ReI?u _ Republican Senators who dared to vote against the bill · are branded as traitors, and in due time will be excommunicated by the moguls of the party.

But, Mr . Speaker, will there ever be an end to this outrageous legislation? Will the time never come when the people . of the United States are to have a voice in formulating the laws by which they are to be taxed? It seems that the Republican party has permanent control of the Government, and that Senator ALDRICH absolutely dominates this party. As long as it triumphs, he will be czar of the Nation. Compared with J;iis influence and power in the enactment of legISlation. the m­ fluence and prerogatives of the President are as fruitless and abortive as would be the edicts of a country schoolmaster.

But, returning to the subject of this controversy, let me say to my friend from St. Louis [l\fr. BABTHOLDT], who contends that he is opposed to a system of taxation that exempts small incomes and not larger ones from the tax burden, because it would be inequality · in the system of taxation, that I am indeed glad that he is beginning to realize that there is such a virtue as equity in bearing the burdens of government. He is certainly reforming in his older age, for it is quite impossible to understand how one who has been wedded to the discriminating doctrine of protection for so many years can conscientiously advocate a policy of justice and equality in ' taxation, except upon the idea of a com - complete conversion to a new political faith. His soul must have been cleansed by the saving grace of that justice not found in the doctrine of protection . Its very name means inequality of tax burden. It means a tax upon consumption and not upon wealth, upon what one eats and wears and not upon his property; it means that the citizen who can scarcely provide food and raiment for his wife and children contributes as much or more to . the support of the G:overnment as does the multimillionaire, and it means that the consumer is not only taxed for the support of his country, but is compelled to contribute five times more to swell the fortunes of millionaire manufacturers and trust manipulators.

Well, does my friend know that every time a dollar tax is voted upon any article imported into this country that the domestic producer of such article adds the same as un extra profit on his product? This was once denied by the advocates of protection, but it was conceded by the most stalwart Republican Senators in the recent great tariff debate. I would like for him to tell the country wherein is to be found equality of taxation under such a system . One man is not only taxed for the support of the Government, but for the benefit of his fellow-man. · While he pays $1 to ~e Government, he is compelled to pay from firn to seven times this amount to his neighbor who is engaged in a manufacturing enterprise. For instance, the American farmer consumes $25,000,000 worth of agricultural implements annually. The tax thereon is 20 per cent. The Government in 1907 collected only $3,600 in revenue, but according to admissions of Republican Senators the 20 per cent Dingley rate was levied in favor of the manufacturer on the $25,000,000 consumed at . home, amounting to a tax of $5,000,000 . So the American farmer, while he . paid $3,600 to his Government, was compelled to donate $5,000,000 to the agriculturalimplement trust. [Applause.]

Another illustration : Only 3 per cent of the lumber consumed in this country is imported. From that the Government derived a revenue of about $3,000,000, while on the 97 per cent of the domestic product consumed at home he was compelled to pay the lumber trust and the lumber manufacturers more than $65,000,000. Now, how does this strike the . gentleman as equality in sharing the burdens of government? This same in· justice is true on the iron, steel, wire, glass, shoe, leather, meat products, hosiery, clothing, gloves, cotton goods, and many other articles necessary to human life. Were I a Republican and advocated such a fallacy as equality of right under the protective system my hours would be haunted by visions of the judgment that overtook Ananias and Sapphira. [Applause.]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two in reply to what the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. l\IILLERJ has just said in his speech advocating the adoption of this measure. He, for the first time in his whole political life, urges the South and the West to unite in the adoption of this measure to thwart the aggressive Val:ldalism of New England. I am, too, proud of his conversion, and when I think of such a speech coming from a Republican from Kansas I am forcibly reminded of the old camp meeting song, " As long as the lamp holds out to burn the vilest sinner may return." · ·

These strange doings on the part of our Republican friends, if sincere, certainly are ominous of much good. When a Kansas Republican is willing to clasp hands wifu a Mississippi . Democrat for the good of the common country, I think it is .time .for . the people to rejoice and offer praises to the Almighty. My friend need of be uneasy about :Mississippi or any of the other Southern States on this proposition. I dare say that no State south of the Mason and Dixon line will hesitate for one moment to ratify this amendment. It is right in principle; it means equality in taxation—that every man shall contribute to the support of the .country in proportion to the wealth with which he has been blessed. This has always been the paramount doctrine of the South, and even the southern Republicans who understand only the A B O's of political honesty will accept and support this amendment. :My friend should look out for the wayward in his own State, for I have always understood that the Republicans of Kansas were the most ubiquitous in principle of all the tribe-always fleeing from one wrong to embrace another.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the greatest danger confronting Democratic success in the next election is the political thievery of the Republicans in appropriating . wholesome Democratic doctrine. A few years ago you purloined the Democratic idea of more rigid supervision s>f transportation companies, and now with unblushing audacity you propose to adopt et literatiin the most sacred tenet of our faith. You have denounced Bryan in season and out of season, in this House and upon the hustings, as a dreamer, a Socialist, and an anarchist for . advocating the policy you now embrace with impunity. He wrote in the Denver . platform this remarkable language: .

We favor an income tax as · a part of our revenue system, and we urge the submission of a constitutional amendment spec~cally autho _ r- ~zing Congress to levy and coiled a tax on individual and corporate mcomes, to the end that wealth may bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the Federal Government. ·

You are compelled, in order to save your political scalps, to make his favorite theory the law. It is, indeed, a bitter pill, but you know that something must be done to assuage the increasing wrath of the people · on account of the grievous wrong that is now being perpetrated by the tariff conference committee.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the unanimous pas age of this measure through the Senate and the favor with which it is being received in this House by your party is too hopeful of good to be accepted with a full measure of confidenca. I am afraid that this is a case of "Greeks bearing gifts." It was inh·oduced in the Senate for the a vowed purpose of defe a ting the Bailey-Cummins income-tax bill, and I am apprehensirn that after it shall have been rushed through this House and goes to the States for ratification all the power and influen ce that can be marshaled against it by sordid wealth and Republican chicanery will be used to compass its defeat. It is only necessary to '"debauch the legislatures of 12 States to secure its rejection, and the same evil influences that have corrupted and carried so many elections have already started a crusade against its adoption by the States.

We were warned by the gentleman from Connecticut [:Ur. HILL], in his speech a few moments ago, what oppo11ition might be expected from New England. He boldly contends that it is unjust to tax the wealth of those favored States for the su1i · . port of the common country, stating that that section, because of its great prosperity, was now compelled to contribute more than its part of the internal-revenue tax. The inconsistency of such an argument is only excelled by the seeming avarice that prompted it. New England, that has bled the country of its wealth for quite half a century; that has her millionaires by the thousands-made so by virtue of the infamous policy of protection-should be the last section of the Union to reject this righteous measure. With her millions invested in manufactures, protected by the tax of from uO to more than 100 per cent, it would be the height of political ingratitude for any statesmen from that section, whether Democrat · or Republican, to act otherwise than to urge a speedy ratification of this amendment.

Let me ask my friend where he imbibed such strange ideas of politicareconomy as to contend that taxation should not be based on the wealth of the country? What statesman ever advoca.ted that a poor man without property should contribute as much to defray the expenses of the Government as does . the millionaire? The former has nothing to protect save his life and liberty, while not only the life and liberty of the · latter is shielded by the Government, but his broad acres and long lines of factories are made secure by the courts and great armies . . · The former costs the Government nothing, while upon the latter it ofttimes spends thousands of dollars. In the time of war, the former bares his breast as a target to the enemy, while the latter hires a substitute and hikes away to the mountains . of Switzer- land.

But, Mr. Speaker, the boldest declaration in opposition to the income tax yet heard comes from the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCALL]. It is indeed hard to understand how a statesman possessing his known intellectuality could advocate such a political principle as to oppose this measure upon the grounds that it is violative of the principles upon which the Government was founded. He discussed a.t length the proposition that the fathers o · f the Republic, to · make secure Democratic equality among the States, intended that when a direct tax was levied, it should be apportioned among the several States according to their population. This doctrine might have appealed to reason at a time when the pro rata wealth of the State · s was practically equal. Had the framers of the Constitution known that the present 1 1 policy of spoliation and greed would have been so · long saddled upon the country, that one State would have been drained of its wealth to enrich an· other, I dare say that no such provision would have been in the Federal Constitution. Can anyone believe for a moment that when our patriotic forefathers founded this Republic they thought that the time would ever come when, by a system of unjust taxation, the per capita wealth of Massachusetts would . be increased to more than $1,500, while that of :Mis issippl would be reduced to less than $1UO, or that they intended that the individual owning $150 should be forced to contribute us much to the support of the Government as one owning $1 GOO? in the light · of these facts, anyone who now advocates a direct tax levied on the several States according to the population thereof exemplifies · a statemanship as tyrannical as it is indefensible. · ible. Sir, there 1s another reason why this direct system of taxation by States should and rim t be forever abandoned. When the Con titution was adopted our vast negro population was in slavery and was not counted as a basis upon which this tax should b . e levied against any State. Now, there are more than six millions of them in the Gulf States alone made citizens by the Constitution and who, however penniless they may be, must ~ counted in estimating the population of any State against which a direct tax is sought to be levied. Such a system of taxation would force the white property owners of the South to contribute ten times as much as those living in other sections of the Union. We should remember that since the adoption of the Constitution many changes have taken place in this Republic. This system of taxation was adopted to make steadfast the doctrine of state sovereignty. But the integrity of statehood was partly destroyed by the results of the civil war, and now it has been completely annihilated by Republican executive and judicial encroachment upon the Constitution. At one time the Union existed by the grace of the States. Now, the States surn·rn by the mercy of the Federal Government. The States were the source of all power, but now they have been reduced to mere boroughs in the great federal system.

Sir, if your party will give back to the South the constitutional privileges she enjoyed fifty years ago, and I do not mean African slavery either; if you will give her the right to administer her own affairs unhampered and unmolested by the . usurpations of the Federal Government; if you will give her back that system of tariff taxation under which she grew rich and powerful, I dare say that but few statesmen from the South would oppose the present constitutional provisions as to direct taxation. [Applause.]

1\Ir. Speaker, however much I may favor this measure and however much I may advocate the corporation tax now pending in the conference committee, still I must confess that I am at a loss to know how either measure is going to profit the great masses of people in this country, unless the tax burden imposed by the tariff is decreased in proportion to the amount of revenue derived by the income and corporation . taxes. l\ly idea of an income tax has always been that its adoption would relieve the necessity for high tariff taxes, and unless it accomplishes this purpose, in my judgment, but little good can or will come to the mas es of the people . If the rich are to be taxed by these measures to run the Government, and the poor are to be taxed by high protection to enrich the manufacturers and trusts, then, in the name of reason, what good can you expect 1 from this legislation? The income tax is right, and it is the subject? only fair means to raise revenue to run the Government, and, when it is adopted, it is to be hoped that the American people will rise in rebellion against your infamous protective system , which is designed for no other purpose than to enrich the rich. The propoEed tariff measure is the limit of high protection, and yet you say that it will not produce sufficient revenue for the Government. In this contention you are correct, and the reason for it is as plain as the noonday sun. You have taxed everything out of the country by high schedules. Scarcely anything is imported, and hence the Government gets nothing, while the manufacturer puts the full amount of the tax in his private purEe. It is conceded by the best authority on this subject that if you will reduce your tariff schedules one-half, the Government will receive twice the revenue therefrom, :ma the people will be relieved of a tax burden for the benefit of the manufacturers and trusts to the extent of not less than $7,000,000,000.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there is another thought. The reckless extravagance in the appropriations under the Republican rule is app~lling to the Nation. In the last decade it has almost doubled, amounting to quite a billion of dollars annually. By your reckless extravagance you have increased the burden of taxation so greatly that your most experienced financiers in this House are at a loss to devise ways and means for the maintenance of the Government. You are levying the highest tariff tax known to the world. The corporation tax and the income tax, if adopted, together with the increase of the internal-1 taxation . revenue tax, will, in the judgment of many of your own party, be necessary to meet the growing expenses of the Government. It is already noised in the atmosphere that two or three hundred millions of dollars of Panama bonds will have to be sold to fill the already empty coffers of the Government.

l\Ir. Speaker, when your party took control of this Govern- . ment it took less than $100,000,000 to defray its annual expenses. · From official statistics we learn that in 1860 there was appropriated $71,718,943. In 1880 it was increased to $298.163,117. In 1900 it amounted to - $590,068,371; in 1907, $762,488,752. And it continues to increase, it now being a billion dollars or more. ' These startling figures unfold the story of your reckless extravagance. ·

Now, sir, is it not time for the people to become alarmed? Is it not time for your party to be dethroned and for the party of the people to take charge of the Government, in order to save it from the maelstrom of bankruptcy and ruin? Another decade of power by the Republican party means the indissoluble union between the Government and the trusts. It means that centralized wealth will subordinate every function of the Government to the behests of avarice. This is as plainly written upon the destiny of this country, unless there be a radical change, as was the handwriting upon the wall of the Babylonian palace. Onward we are rushing to a national crisis. The same evil winds that wafted the shipwrecked republics of the past are fast swelling our sails. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. LONGWORTH. l\Ir. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Missouri to consume some more of his time. How much more time is there remaining, I would like to ask?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has fifty minutes and the gentleman from Ohio has twentyseven minutes.

l\Ir. LONGWORTH. I ask the gentleman from Missouri to consume some of his time, as he has a large amount remaining. l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. I ask leave for everybody in the House to extend their remarks for ten days upon this subject.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request? Does the gentleman mean ten legislative days or ten calendar days?

1\lr. CLARK of Missouri. Ten calendar days, and that will get through it quicker. ·

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from l\Iissouri?

l\Ir. OLMSTED. I would like the request to be made so that I mny have permission to print remarks in the RECORD not directly bearing on this bill.

l\Ir. MICHAEL E. DRISCOLL. I make the same request.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The request of the gentleman from .Missouri is that the time for extension shall be ten calendar days, the remarks to be confined to the subject of the resolution before the House.

Mr. OLl\ISTED. Has the consent already been given?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not informed. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri for general leave to print for ten calendar days on this l\fr. OLMSTED. I understand, so far as I am concerned, I need not be confined to this subject .

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection? [After a pau::;e.) The Chair hears none, and it so ordered.

Ur. CLARK of Missouri. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. SULZER].

1\fr. LIVINGSTON. l\Ir. Speaker, before the gentleman be· gin , I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. OLMSTED] be permitted to print such remarks in the RECORD as he choose for ten days, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. l\IICHAEL E. DRISCOLL 1 have the same permission .

l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. Why, certainly; I thought that was included.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. No; it was not included.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

l\lr. SULZER. Mr. Speaker, I am now, always have been, and always will be in favor of an income tax, because, in my opinion, an income tax is the fairest, the most just, the most honest, the most democratic, and the most equitable tax ever devised by the genius of statesmanship. Ever since I came to Congress the record will show that I have been the constant advocate of an income tax along constitutional lines. And so to-day I reiterate that through it only, and by its agency alone, will it ever be possible for the Government to be able to make idle wealth pay its just share of the ever-increasing burdens of At " the present time nearly all the taxes raised for the support of the Government are levied on consumption-on what the people need to eat and to wear and to live; on the ne r e sari es of life; and the consequence is that the poor man, indirectly, but surely in the end, - pays practically as much to support the Government as the rich man- 1 -·egardless of the difference of incomes. This system of tariff tex on consumption, by which the consumers are saddled with all the burdens of Government, is an unjust system of taxation, and the only way to remedy the injustice and destroy. the inequality is by a graduated income tax that will make idle wealth as well as honest toil · pay its just share of the taxes needed · to administer the ~ National Government. Hence I shall vote for the pending resolution or any proposition that; in my judgment, will make an income tax in this country possible and constitutional, however remote that po sibility may be. -

Let me say, gentlemen, that every great thinker, every honest jurist, and every great writer on political economy, from the days of Aristotle down to the present time, has advocated and justified the impo s ition of an income tax for the support of government as the most honest and the most expeditious and the most equitable principle of taxation that can be devised. It must come in this country. It should have been adopted long ago. .Almost every great government on earth secures a large part -0f its revenue from an income tax, and we must do the same. We are far behind the governments of Europe in this re1' spect-far behind enlightened public opinion. - . Sir, let me sa.y, however, that I am not deceived by the unanimity in which this resolution is now being rushed through the Congress by the Republicans, its eleyenth-hour friends . I can see through their scheme. I know they never expect to see this that leave. resolution become a part of the Constitution. It is offered now to placn te the people. The ulterior purpose of many of these time . Republicans is to prevent this resolution from e-rnr being ratified by three-fourths of the legislatures of the States, necessary for its .final .adoption, and thus nullify it most effectually. Therefore, so far as I am personally concerned, I am not going into ecstacies on account -0f the practically unanimous pas.sage of this joint resolution through Congress. I have been here long enough to know, · and I am wise enough to believe, that its passage now is only a. sop to the people by the Republicans, and that their ulterior purpose is to defeat it in the Republican state legislatures.

I am not going to give the Republicans credit for good faith in passing this resolution until I see how their representatives vote on it in the legislatures of Republican States. Mark what I say now. When this resolution passes, the wealth and the interests and the Republican leaders of the country opposed to an income tax will soon get together and urge its rejection by the States. If these obnoxious interests to the- welfare of the people can get 12 state legislatures to prevent its . ratification, the resolution will fail to secure the necessary approval of three-fourths of the States of the Union and will never be adopted as part of the Constitution. It will not be required even to defeat it in the legislatures of 12 St.ates. All that will · be necessary to be done is to prevent its being acted upon by the senates of the 12 States. Let us wait and see if my prediction comes true.

J\fr. Speaker, I had indulged the hope that the Members of this Congress would meet the expectations of the people-revise the tariff downward-t.ake .advantage of this splendid opportunity and write into the pending tariff legislation a graduated income-tax provision that would be fair :rncl just to all the people a.nd absolutely constitutional ; that would make wealth as well as toil, plutocracy us well as poverty, pay its just share of the burdens of Government. There is no doubt it could be done if the Republicans in Congress were true to their promises to the people. In my opinion the Republicans in this Congress have been recreant to their duty a.nd faithless to their pledges in failing to write into the pending tariff legislation a constitutional provision for a graduated income tax, The people of the land witness here to-day, in the enactment of the iniquitous Aldrich tariff bill, the most shameless betrayal of their rights, the most shameful repudiation of Republican promises that has ever been exhibited in all the annals of our political history. . . .

The passing of the outrageous Aldrich tariff bill, an oppressive tax measure that will fasten on the backs of the consumers of the country for years to come unspeakable burdens beyond the calculation of the finite mind, is the legislative tax iniquity of the century .

Sir, the passage of this resolution is, as I say, only a subter ­ fuO'e--a mere hope to be speedily dashed to the ground. The Republicans are only pretending to give the people the future possibility of an income tax. They know the people are in favor of . a graduated income t.a.x; they know the people now demand it; .and hence they hold out. this mere pretense while they place upon the statute books the highest protective tarifftax la. w in the history of the land to burden them more than they have ever been burdened before; and the Aldrich tariff bill as it will finally go upon the statute books-mark what I - say-will be the highest protective-tax measure in the interests of the beneficiaries of protection that h as ever been enacted in this country or any other civilized country in -all the history of the world. [Loud applause on the Democratic .side.]

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. SULZER. Well, .Mr. Speaker, that is about all I set out to say. Of c o urse I shall v-ote for this resolution. It will pass Congress by the requisite two-thirds vote. It then goes to the legislatures of the States. Three-fourths of the state legislaure s must ratify it . Let the people of the country see to it and instruct their state representatives to vote for it. The issue is now with them. I will do my part in Congress and out of Congress to make this resolution for a constitutional income tax a part of the organic law of the land. ·

Mr . CLARK of :Missouri. I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 1\-lARTIN].

Mr . MARTIN of Colorado. Mr . Speaker, I ask recognition for the purpose of obtaining leave to print in the RECORD a letter to me from a former brilliant Member of Congress from my State, Hon. Lafe Pence, . of Colorado, briefly and conci ely setting forth his views upon the pending income-tax amendment.

The SPEAKER pro -tempore . The gentleman already has

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado . I yield back the balance of my The letter referred to is a follows :

THE NEW DENISON HOTEL COMPANY,

Indianapolis, June 29, 1909. Hon. J"olL.~ A. l\il.RTrn ,

House of Representatives, Washington, D . C.

l\1Y Dear hlA.RTr~: "God moves in ~ mysterious way, His wonders to perform."

The most important national campaign in fifty years will be on us in 1910. '!'he fight for the income tax will be carried into every one of the 46 States for the election of state legislatures. It will continue until the fight is won ; no .man can tell how many years that will b e . When the Democratic party took up the fight for the income tax its sincerity was doubted. When such Democrats in Congress as Bryan. Hall, McMillin, CauIP CLARK, Crisp. Swanson, and others succeeded in having the Democratic party in Virginia declare for a graduated income tax and avowed their intention of having it carried into national campaigns, their sincerity and ability were doubted. I was one of the doubters . That was in 1893. They proved their good faith and ability, and from that time on their movements were rapid and continuous. In 1894 they incorporated the income tax in the Democratic tariff bill. It was thrown out by the court, and in 1896 the Democratic party declared in .favor of the tax, and since that time the enactment of such a tax as a part of the permanent fiscal system of the Federal Government has been a party doctrine .

For sixteen years has the party been occupied in its campaigns of education upon this question. Other issues have come and gone; this has remained. So thorough and complete has been the work that, although our ticket failed of election in 1908, the successful Republican candidate, in less than four months after his inauguration, declared that the income tax should be adopted and expressed his beli e f that a majority of the people so think ; and this in the face of the fact that in 1894- in the Fifty-third Congress-every Republican in House a.nd Senate. opposed. the law; that the entire R e publican press of the country ba s consistently and persistently opposed the law ; that no Republican candidate or convention has at any time favored the law; that the entire leadership of the Republican party everywhere has objected to the law; not because it was unfair or unjust, but because the revenues thereby created might enable the Government to get along without high protective duties. .

The last-mentioned. Republican objection is being met by Senator BORAH in his proposition to devote the revenues so realized from a.n income tax to the con st ruction of a larger navy, and I see by the papers that ex-Senator Chandler, in New Hampshire, is rallying his party to the support of that idea. · The chief danger from BORAH is that he is not only preeminently strong and able 1 but he is thoroughly sincere, and as the country knows him better it will appreciate that fact better. - As politician s , the Republican manag e rs are the wonders of the world. In campaign times they put a blanket over ALDRICH, PENROSE, SMOOT, and iOIDC others and put forth such men as BORAH; DOLLIVER, CUMMINS, LA FOLLETTE, and announce to the public, " These are our apostle s, " a.nd the people believe it. Then comes the- - inauguration and the sp. eci aJ session, and the blanket is lifted and the " true apostles" come forward into daylight and take full a.nd complete charge. Suppose their plan was reversed, how. many Western States would the Republicans carry'( Th e Taft proposition for the income tax has less merit than BORA1J: 'S . Just before the President's late special message the papers informed us that it was due and expected, and the President wanted the tax . , not a.s a part -of the regular policy of the Government. but for use in times of war. His message a ked for it, not as a part of the regular governmental system, but as a thing that will be handy for emergencies. They all re-cognize that we are just getting over "a prolonged Roos e velt spree," and we have got the bills to pay; but they stop at that, and propose that when the Nation gets sober it shall drop the tax, or use it only for battle ships, whi-ch we may or may not want, or to pay for war · or wars, which we hope to -God we will never have.

Now, right now, J"ohn, is the ti.me for such a man as you, assisted l>y CHAM:P CLAnK and all the . party leaders, to lead the Democratic paJ.;cy to the very highest and best plane for the coming contest. Make it clear that we are and have been for the law as a substantial, regular, and permanent part of our fiscal system ; and make it clear that if . special purposes are to be accomplished, there is one vastly more important than the .construction of battle ships or the preparation for improbable wars, one that affects the daily lives of millions of our people through every year .and every month and every week. In my judgment, it is going to be a long fight and a bard one. There are 46 States; we must secure favorable action by legislators of 35 of them. We had just a.s well aba n d-0n the hope o~ having New Mexico and Arizona in our column, because the Aldrich contingent i.cill not let those t1co States be aadecl, pending this conte.st. I don't think for a moment that the P r esi d ent is a.cting in bad faith. but 1 have no doubt that Mr. ALDRICH and his associates have in their memorandum l>ooks now t he names of the dozen States whose legislators they expect to control to defeat the constitutio n al amen d ment.

Now, John, we are going to need every vote that It is possible to get in every State. The fight must be won now or never. Let us win it as a Democratic fight, if we can, and let us deserve to so win it; but, above all things, let us win it.

After long consideration and many months of deliberation, I say to you bluntly, that in my judgment the only way the fight can be won is for us to make some such declaration as the following, to wit: · We favor such constitutional amendments and legislation as will secure a federal tax upon the incomes of individuals and corporations, and candidly avow that one of the chief reasons is to enable the Federal government to abandon all whisky, wine, and beer taxes, and thus leave the sovereign States free and untrammeled in their control of the liquor traffic.

Such a declaration will bring to the support of the measure tens of thou ands of votes which it might not otherwise secure. It will put us on a plane which will entitle us to their support. What is more important, the declaration is just, fair, wise, candid, and right.

Do you say to me that it is un-Democratic? I answer that you and others representing us there can make it Democratic un ' until the convention meet next year, just as Bryan, CLARK, and other Democrats in Congress made the income tax Democratic in 1894, two years prior to the national convention of 1896. And I answer further, it is now Dem ocra tic. This question can not be longer handled with gloves ; it has lle:m dodged and avoided too long already.

You may not have and would not a sume the authority, probably, to commit the Democratic party on the dry or on the wet side of the liquor que \.~on, but nothing can be more Democratic. John, than to declare that Uncle Sam should take his hands off and leave the sovereign States undisturbed in settling the question as they please. All old notions about our party and sumptuary legislation have gone to the · discard since the solid Democratic Southern States have et a new example during the last three years. You can see the same thing being repeated right here in Indiana, and it is not strange that such an example. set by the solid South, should be first copied in Indiana north of the Mason and Dixon line. The best civilization we have is in the South. The worship of the dollar has not driven out the old religions down there. They still think more of their men than they do of dollars, and more of their women than they do of men, and the same civilization more completely dominates the people of Indiana than those of any other Northern State.

You will find that such a re olution as I propo e icm be adopted by somebody; the times are ripe for it. Do not forget that the Prohibition party, in its national platform last year, declared for aii income tax. Their cry has long been for a "stainless flag." Such a platform would give them a flag-platform-a word for each star and each stripe. It is worth serious thought, John, that the party with such a shibboleth as "A just tax and a stainless flag" will have high claims, indeed, upon the patriotic voter. It would be a pity, indeed, for any party-except the Democratic party-to- lay claim upon a flag platform or a flag campaign.

- There are 46 stars in the flag standing for the 46 States ; 13 of them for original States, 2 for Vermont . and Maine, and . 5 of them representing the States created from the Northwest Territory; that makes 20. The other 26 stars, John, stand for States, every single acre of which was acquired to the Republic by Democratic Presid e nts as a Democratic policy; there is not a Federalist acre or a Whig acre or a Republican acre represented on that flag. It is our flag, and any flag campaign should be our campaign.

However, the important thing fs to wili the lau:-for the sake of ourselves, s , our children, and our children's children-and we need and must have every vote that :we can get in every State. You know how much I have this at heart and how many years I have waited to see this contest begun. Raise our banner high, John, and plant our feet firmly upon the highest possible plane; then a patriotic people and their I righteous God will not let us fail.

Very truly, your friend, LAFE PENCN.

l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, llow mucll time do I get back?

Tlle SPEAKER pro tempore. A minute irnd a half.

Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I yield :frrn minutes to the gentleman from New York [l\Ir. GoLDFOGLE].

[Mr. GOLDFOGLE addressed the House. See Appendix.] l\Ir. CLARK of Missouri. I now yield to the gentleman from Mi souri, Judge DE ARMOND.

Mr. DE A.R i.\ ARMOND. Mr. Speaker, I had the satisfaction of voting for an income-tax provision in the Wilson tariff bill, pas eel in 1804, rind have since improved every opportunity to vote that way. I have long been in favor of that kind of tax legislation. Nothing that has transpired lately or remotely has had any effect toward changing my judgment of the matter. I have long been of the belief that, as the Constitution now stand , there is power and authority in Congress to levy a constitutional income tax. I am confident that the power should be exercised now.

It seems to me that if there were a real desire to have such a tax the natural course would be to pass a law providing for it. It seems strange that the representatives of the people-more than 390 in this body and 90 in the other-should be halted year after year in any purpose that they really have because fourteen or fifteen yea.rs ago, by a decision of a divided court, standing five to four, an income-tax provision at that time _ in the law was declared to be void on account of uncon titutionaJity. If we will recall what happened at that time, we may · recollect that when the question was first before the court there were eight justices present, and four believed the act to be constitutional and four believed it to be unconstitutional. Later, with all the justices present, the full bench of nine, the matter came up again. It would naturally be supposed that the justice who was absent when the question ";as first passed upon, and present when it was passed upon later, would really cast the deciding vote. He voted - in favor of sustaining the tax, but the tax was overthrown by the vote of one of those who had in the first instance voted to sustain it. He had · changed his mind or his purpose-how that was brought about we need not now stop to inquire-so as to declare unconstitutional by a majority of one that which before he had by his vote and decision declared to be constitutional. Thank the Lord, that man is not now a member of the court. . Strange it is, with such a law disposed of in such a way, if we really desire an income tax, that we dally with the question year after year, and give as an excuse for not pas ing an income-tax law that the Supreme Court, in the manner that I have suggested and stated, once, years ago, declared such a law to be unconstitutional. .

l\Iy judgment is that it is the duty of the House and the Senate to paEs such measures as _ the Members believe to be constitutional, just, and proper, and leave to the Supreme Court the responsibility of determining the question of constitutionality when presented. Surely it can not be the duty of Congress to refrain forever or indefinitely from putting up to the Supreme Court the que tion of the soundness of a 5 to 4 decision.

I will vote for the passage of this resolution to submit · this con titutional amendment, but not in the ardent hope that anything effective will come of it, because I am right well satisfied that years and years will pass before this proposed amendment will go into the Constitution, if it ever goes into it. Do you suppose that over in the Senate of the United States if there was n belief or a fear that this income-tax amendment would go into the Constitution, the resolution to submit could go through by unanimous vote? You may, but I do not believe it. The expectation i to delude the American people by the submi mission of the amendment arid then deprive them, an.d deprive them effectually, if possible, of the promised fruits by a failure to ratify it.

The State that does not vote for its ratification might as well vote -against it. It is not necessary to vote against it; the amendment does not go into the Constitution until threefourths of the States have ratified . it. Those States that vote against it no more effectually decide against it than those that do not vote at all.

I have long believed that the only reasonable hope for any material amendment of the Constitution of the United States must re t upon a convention convened to submit amendments. I hope the time may come, and come soon, when we shall have such a convention.

Not only is it desirable to have an income-tax amendment added to the Con titution-thqugh I believe an income-tax law should be passed now for a graduated income tax-but it is important to amend the Constitution as to several ot.her matters. Congress can provide for a constitutional convention at the request of two-thirds of the States, and such a convention could consider the whole subject of constitutional amendments. Then not only this question, but every question of great importance to the people going to amendment of the Constitution, could be considered by the people"s representatives selected solely for that purpose, and could be voted up or voted down by the several States.

If you really de ire to have this amendment adopted, tl::i.e chances of its adoption would be greatly increased by incorporating in this resolution some such amendment as that suggested by the gentleman from Texas [l\lr. HE RY]. If this amendment were submitted dir ec tly to com -ent ions in the several States, the members elected strictly and solely with reference to the question submitted, there would be some prospect that the judgment of the people would prevail, and that by a direct appeal to the people and a prompt decision by them ratification of the amendment might be secured. But with all the opportunity for delay afforded by submission to state legislature~, and with all the incentives to delay, the pro pect of this amendment getting into the Con titution is, I fear, dim and distant, indeed.

Some gentlemen here have expres ed themselves in favor of this resolution in order that we may lay an income tax if war comes and dire necessity. It is no more just to tax in a par- ticular way in time of war than to lay the same tax the same way in time oLpeace, varying the rate as the need for revenue varies. This is a question of justice and propriety.

So far as war necessity is concerned, that necessity can be met at any time, even under the decision of the Supreme Court, if an income tax will meet it. An income tax can be laid that will assuredly meet the test of the judgment of the Supreme Court, because it can be laid, though not equitably, in proportion to population, if you please, and if extreme necessity requires it and that be the only way, that way could be taken.

There is no good reason why taxation should not be accord- _· ing to ability to pay-according to wealth, according to income. Your tariff tax is a tax upon necessity, a tax in proportion to the amount you buy, n tax in proportion · to what you must have, not a tax in proportion to what you possess. Let us tax wealth, not want-dollars, not men; and why not do it now? [.Applause on the Democratic side.]

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. Speaker, if the Republican party is in earnest about this matter and wants to be entirely fair and honest with the American people, you will vote for an incometax law, and then provide also for an amendment to the Constitution, which could be resorted to in the event the Supreme Court declares the new income-tax law unconstitutional.

If you should do this, there would be no longer any question as to your sincerity in the matter-your friendship for the measure.

This income-tax proposition is purely a Democratic measure, and it is the fairest and most just method of taxation ever devi s ed by the genius of man.

I am in favor of amending the Constitution if it needs amending in order to obtain an income-tax law, but I believe that an income t llx is constitutional, and that the Supreme Court, as now constituted, would declare it so.

· If we h a d an income-tax law, it would bring millions of money into the Treasury, and tho s e paying it would scarcely miss it, mid it would 11ghten the burden that now rests so heavily on the great body of consumers.

The R e publican party is not in favor of an income tax, and the submission of this amendment to the Constitution, instead of voting straight on the income tax, is your plan of procrastination.

The Republican party always moves against the lines of least resistance, and when that party can not defeat a measure, it makes promises and postpones action.

The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BARTHOLDT] when we elected the first Democratic President after the w.ar between the States that we talked about an income tax because, according to his statement, we thought of tearing down the custom-houses and would need revenue from that source to run the Government. I want to tell the gentl e man that the customhous+s · have not been destroyed, and the Republican party has been in power in every branch of the Government for more than twelve years, and your tariff tax is the highest that it has ever been, and yet you have not the revenues now with which to meet the extravagance indulged in by the Republican party. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a Qanic-a Republican panic-the evil effects of which are still with us. I have heard various reasons assigned for the panic, and the gentleman from Kansas [l\Ir. MILLER] now tells us "that the bankers caused it." Well, Mr. Speaker, some of these bankers are among the millionaires whom we want to reach with an income-tax law, and if the gentleman wants to punish that class of citizens on whom he wishes to throw the blame for this Republican panic, let him join us in voting for an income-tax law now.

I am not going to make a lengthy speech at this time, for I discussed, at some length, the Payne bill when it was up for consideration in the House.

In pas . passing, however, I want to give you a sample of what this Aldrich bill is going to do to the .American consumer.

Here is what the editor of the Birmingham Age-Herald says, and says truly:

PRICE OF CLOTHING HERE.AFTER.

To those who are compelled to buy moderate-priced clothing the Aldrich scheme of duties bring . s these results, namely, a suit of clothes which cost $10 last spring wm cost $12.50 next spring. The cost of the $16 suit will be advanced to $18. The cost of the $18 suit will be advanced to $22. The cost of the $20 suit will be advanced to $25.

Does this look like revision downward?

.And now, Mr. Speaker, here is a notice sent out by a wholesale sugar dealer, who is a friend to the consumer.

I am indebted to the Barfield-Green Mercantile Company, of Lineville, ..A.la., in my district, for sending me this notice:

NOTICE.

With no duty on sugar , sugar would be 2 cents per pound cheaper. Write your Senator and Congressman that you favor "free sugar." The .Aldrich bill strikes hard the necessities of life all along the line, and if gentlemen here think that the people are ig­ servants." norant of what you are doing you will find in the next election that you are entirely mistaken.

Mr. Speaker, th~ States wisely and justly provide that every taxpayer shall know the exact amount of taxes that he pays every year-taxes on money loaned or hoarded, so much on personal property and so much on real estate. The taxpayer knows, as he has a right to know, just how much taxes he is required to pay to the city, county, and state government. But, Mr. Speaker, under your mysterious tariff-tax law, you tax the citizen, · and you refuse to let him know just how much he is · taxed by the Federal Government. The tariff tax is hid in the · price of the things that he must buy, and at the end of the year he knows that the cost of living has increased; but he does not know how much you have taxed him under the system of a high protective tariff. This is wrong, and you should amend this tariff bill now, so that it will require that on every article upon which you have laid a tariff, the amount of the tariff tax shall be stamped, so that the consumer may know as he buys · the necessities of life what the tariff tax is, and at the end of the year he will know the amount of tariff tax that you have compelled him to pay.

For instance, if the tariff on a wool hat is $1.50, and the tariff on a pair of shoes is 25 or 50 cents, and on a piece of machinery $50, when the machinery cost only $100 to b e gin with, bear in mind, the consumer would begin to see how you hold him up with one hand and rob him with the other. If he could only realize how he is being impo s ed upon and robbed by the present tariff system, it would not be long until the Republican party would be driven from power in every branch of the Government; and then a just and equitable tariff law would be passed by the representatives of the Democratic party.

The man of small means, with his goods in sight, and the man who has to struggle for the necessities of life, bear the tax burdens of the Government. Those least able to pay are forced, under this Republican system of tariff taxation, to divide their earnings with the tariff barons and an extravagant Federal Government ~

The man whose income amounts to several thousand dollars a year, and the man whose yearly income runs into the millions, will be reached by . an income tax, and they will be forced to contribute to the support of the Government. said that Of course the law should provide that a man's yearly income must be so many thousand dollars before you begin to tax it. The purpose of such a law is to tax those most a ble to pay taxes, and lighten the tax burden on those le a st able to be a r it. Let us put the greatest tax burden, in the form of an income tax, on the man who is most benefited by the tariff prote c tion that the Government gives, for he is most able to bear it.

From the man who has much in this world's goods much should be expected and demanded in the way of taxes to pay the expenses of the government under which he lives.

Just here, Mr. Speaker, I will · include in my remarks a statement from Robert Ellis Thompson, in the Irish World.

In discussing the evils of indirect taxes in England . he s a ys: The only real corrective to this inju s ti c e has been the income tax devised by William Pitt when England was fighting, and revived in 1842 by Peel and Gladstone as a mean s to s av e the country from an nu al deficits. Until within thirty years pa s t seven -e i g hths of the Bri t ish revenue came from indirect taxes-taxes which t e nd to make th e rich ~~~hdeins~nd the poor . poorer by an unjust distribution of the public An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the coun t ry and to m a ke it pay its share.