July 12, 1909

Mr. COLE. · If the resolution submitting this amendment to a vote of the state legislatures is a subterfuge, why was ii embodied in the Democratic platform at Denver?

l\fr. ROBINSON. Mr. Speaker, I wm reply to that in a moment. I had started to say that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Pollock case I have never subscribed - to. I would not make that announcement here if I did not believe that practically all the great lawyers in this country are unanimous in. condemning that decision. But, sir, we will vote to submit this proposition because we know that you are unwilling that we should pass an income-tax law, and it is the only chance the people in this country will have to pass upon the question. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

The Democratic party put it in its platform out of a sense of respect to the court, whose conduct, in my judgment, does not merit the greatest consideration for its decision of the Pollock case. [Applause on the Democratic side.] The fact that a judge changed his conclusion in a matter of that importance overnight; the fact that the opinion is discredited and rejected by the great lawyers of the country, without regard to politics, convinces me that in respecting that opinion you are me rely trying to postpone this question until a reaction can occur on the subject. Let us have the issue now and let us meet it - fairly and squarely. The people of the United States are in favor of an income tax. Let us pass this resolution and let us also pass an income-tax law.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCALL] said that no one whom he knows of, except Mr. Bryan, has studied this subject. Be it then said to the credit of that great man that he has compelled the Republican party in Congress and . in the Senate of the United States to give respect to his opinion. (Applause on the Democratic side.]

I do not appear here to eulogize any man, but let gentlemen who deride Mr. Bryan remember that he stands head and shoulders above any other man in America in private life today. [Applause.] Let them remember that all the great reforms that have been brought about in politics during the last few years have been wrung from a reluctant Republican party through his advocacy of measures before the American people. [Applause on the Democratic side.] Let them remember that in private life, as well as ii;i public conduct, he is above reMr. Speaker, there are some objections urged here to this measure which I would like to reply to. The gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. HILL] bo.th subscribe to the doctrine that an income tax ought never to • be applied except in case of war. Why, · Mr. Speaker, should not one who has great wealth bear his share of the burdens of this Government in times of peace? Why should the man of ordinary means, the poor man, if you please, bear all the burdens of this Government in time of peace and then when war comes fight its battles? Something has been said about millionaires going to war. Who ever heard of a millionaire going to war? Everybody with either recollection or experience knows · that when war comes the millionaire moves out of the country, or hires a substitute, or hides himself. It is the ordinary man, the citizen of moderate means, the man who per· forms daily toil, that at the call of his country shoulders his musket and leaves his home and goes down to battle and perhaps to death on a bloody field. [Applause.]

I say that the principle of taxing incomes in time of war is no more reasonable or just than in taxing them in time of peace. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BA.RTHOLDT] says that he congratulates the Republican party on having "come over" to his view of the matter. I hail with delight a new Moses in the wilderness! I am glad to know, Mr. Speaker, that he is convinced that the Republican party honestly believes in an income tax; but as sure as we are here, nobody in charge of this measure expects it to be ratified. They expect to go into some of the state legislatures and defeat it or prevent its ratification. . I say let us pass this resolution and then let them bring in an income-tax bill and let us pass it and present it to the Supreme Court, and again let the Supreme Court pass on the matter. They wi11 reverse the decision in . the Pollock case, for it stands in the judicial history of this country as one opinion upon an important matter rendered by that great court that can not be vindicated in the judgment of any considerable number of the members of the American bar. I am for an income tax, Mr. Speaker, for some reasons that you gentlemen over there are against it.

I am for an income tax for the reason that I believe it a fair and just method of taxation, and for the further reason that I believe it will help to break down the high protective-tariff wall which you ha·rn constructed. .And I want to say to you now that when an income-tax feature is placed in our re'Venue laws you will see that it will become a popular method of taxation. It will reduce the popularity of your high protective tariff, and at last force you to do for the American. people what you promised to do in the last election, and which you had not the slightest intention of doing when you made the promise. You told them you would reduce the tariff. Ah, you say you made no specific promi es of tariff ... “reduction,” yet the promise of tariff revision was the result of agitation in favor of tariff reduction. It was written in your platform because you heard the tread ' and steady step of millions of voters of this country marching to the polls threatening to turn you out of power. You dared not declare against it. Your candidate for President went before the people of the country and said that the tariff rates under the Dingley law had become excessive and should be reduced.

In his speech delivered at Cincinnati September 22, 1908, while the campaign was in progress, Mr. Taft said:

The Dingley tariff has served the country well, but 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 t& the change o! conditions. But on the whole the tariff ought to be lowered.

In December, 1908, after the election, he said, in an address to the Ohio Society:

B e tter no revision at all, better that the new bill should fail, unless we have an honest and thorough' revision on the basis laid down and the principles outlined in the party's platform.

Comment npon this language is unnecessary. It asserts that the Dingley rates are generally too rugh and · ought to be reduced; that the pledge in the platform to reduce the tariff should be kept. And now you assert on that side of this Chamber that "tariff revision" did not mean tariff reduction. When you say that you are deliberately trying to fool the American people. It remains to be seen how long you can continue this course and remain in power. It must be determin e d here a fter by the public whether you can promise tariff reduction before the election and :repudia:te that promise after th e election and still retain favor.

This repeated attempt by leaders of the Republican party here and elsewh e re to put an untenable construction on the platform upon which they won the election has discredited their sincerity and made them objects of derision and contempt. Who ever heard of a Republican campaign speaker telling the people in 1908 that the platform did not mean reduction of rates any more than it meant increase of rates? In view of the history of this plank in the platform; the agitation 'Which caused its ins e rtion; the construction placed upon it by the Republican nominee for Presid e nt, both before and since the election; the con tructfon given :it by the newspapers and campaign speakers advocating the Republican ticket; and the universal understanding of its meaning, it is now dishonest to contend that it did not promise subst a ntial reduction. I have said that Republican new s papers throughout the country have condemned the majority in Congress for violating the party pledge to re- I duce the tariff. As an · illustration of the disappointment which is bnt partly expressed in editorials of many leading Republican. newspapers, I submit an editorial from the Boston Herald, of l\Iay the 6th. This paper is reputed to have- supported the Republican ticket vigorously in 1908. It said :

It would be better fo reenact the Dingley bill forthwith, and then adjourn Congress, than to continue the ridiculous discussion and the worse than foolish tinkering with the tariff now going on at Washington. The country is disgusted. It has waited in vain for some si g n that the pledge of the Republican party would be kept, a pledge made not only by the party in convention, but by the recent leader of the party, Mr. Roosevelt, and by the present leader, President Taft. Neither Mr. Roo s e­ velt nor Mr. Taft is to be · blamed for the hopeless breakdown of the party promise, nor is the mass of Republicans throughout the coun t ry. To the plindness-some call it shrewdness--0f the congressional lead e rs, their callous disreg a rd of an enlightened public opinion, must be ascrib e d the plight in which the country finds itself, dragging in the m uddle of tariff talk, the end of the course not yet in sight.

l\Ir. Speaker, is the work of this extraordin a ry session of Con· gre s s to result in worse · than failure? Shall we enact a measure which will increase the tribute our present laws extort from the general public to gratify the avarice of special a l inter e sts?

This session of Congress will adjourn in a few days. It& records will be a perpetual monument to our indifference or our incapacity. For four months we have been deliberating upon a single subject. The longer we deliberate, the more confused we become, and the less confidence the public feel in the willing· ness of their lawmakers to treat them justly. When the Payne bill passed the House, many Members who voted for it did so reluctantly. No one was entirely satisfied with it.

The newspapers of the country, without regard to politics, almost unanimously criticised it. Universal disappointment was expressed at the failure of this body in its passage of the bill · to reduce the rates on many articles in common use. Expressions of disappointment and regret were not confined to Members on the Democratic side of this Chamber. They were frequently heard from Republicans in speeches on the floor, in interviews, and public discussions-RepnbUcans who have been loyal · all their lives to the organization and principles ' of their party. No one, not excepting the amiable leader of that party on this floor, the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE], dared to speak of it or dream of the Payne , bill as a model of legislative propriety and the embodiment of what should be contained fn a tariff bill. But behold how greater ills have transformed this lesser evil into a creature of beauty; its defects have become invisible, and its deformities appear attractive. When messengers from this body bore the Payne bill from this Chambe:r for its - consideration elsewhere it seems that they were mere pallbearers of the dead hopes of a patient, trusting public. It was not then anticipated that iµ its progress toward final enactment into law the proposed measure would be stripped of the few provisions it contained of benefit to the people at large. It was not feared that the reductions it con· templated in rates on some prime necessities would be superseded by marked increases. Yet the unexpected has happened. It occurs so often in legislation that it is becoming "the regular order."

THE PAYNj!l BILL HAS BECOME A MODEL.

The advocates of tariff revision "downward," those Repub· licans who are old fashioned enough to adhere to the pledge in their platform sacredly made, those who are credulous enough to have believed that there was any intention of keeping it when the platform was adopted, are now abandoning hope. The people of the whole country are disgusted. They realize that a skillful "confidence" game has been played on the table of high politics; that the cards were · marked when the game opened, and they have not even the gambler's chance in an honest game to win. This is a " compromise" in which the masses of the people are directly interested. The bill we are threatening to pass will make living more costly to the average man without materially expanding his opportunities. There are some wlio insist that the draft of the bill as now considered will not in fact in.crease the cost of any necessity of life, and that on the whole a reduction is made, because, they say, the number of reductions exceed the number of increases. When, however, you examine the proposed amendments, you find that many of the proposed decreases relate to trivial articles, others to ar. ticles not in 1 common use, whereas the principal increases are on the food and clothing commonly ea.ten and worn. It follows that the number of increases or decreases is not the correct criterion by which to determine whether the cost of living will b e incr ea sed, but rather the character of the articles on which t h e rates are increased or reduced and the extent to which the same are used.

Without attempting any analysis now of the very compli· ca t ed schedules of the proposed measure, it is sufficient to say . ) th a t the rates on many articles of common use are or may be incre a sed. Among them may be fairly included woolen cloth, gloves, hosiery, hats, imported suitings, underwear, shoes, soaps, builder's materials, perfomery, lemons, pineapples, olives, spices, :figs, nuts, raisins, laces, embroidery, cord, and paper.

All these and no doubt many others. Mill men are already sending out price lists showing -increases- of from 25 per cent to 50 per cent in woolen fabrics. I assume that this may be due to the proposed increase in the duty on them. Of what possible benefit can this increase be to the ordinary citizen? Are not the rates on this class of imports · already high enough? How is the increased duty on gloves to be justified? Throughout the long con ideration of this measure no Member, no newspaper has attempted a justification of this increase. These increases have been made arrogantly in spite of public opinion and without necessity.

Nobody now expects tl:Je Republican party to keep its platform pledge to reduce the tariff. There is little pretense among those who control it of any such purpose. It has been said by some in power in ' this body, and by others high in authority in the councils of' the Republican party in another chamber in this Capitol, that no pledge was made to reduce the tariff; that the promise was merely to "revise the schedules,” and that this meant a promise to increase as much as it meant a promise to decrease the rafes.

The promise honestly construed was a promise to reduce. Everyone knows that. The gentl e man from New York, I believe, recognizes it. It is not susceptible- of any other construction. I grant you that the Republican platform did not use the specific word “reduce,” but it was the demand for a reduction in the rates that caused the insertion of the plank in the platform. This demand was well-nigh universal. It came from millions of active, aggressive citizens of the West, whose convictions as to the necessity for reduction in t a riff rates are earnest and well known to every politician. It came from the South; from every section of the Union . Its champions were high in authority in the Republican party. The former President yielded his desire for a reduction of tariff rates to party expediency and consented to postponement of action until after the election. It was public opinion in favor of reduction in tariff rates that forced the Republican party, who s e l e aders for the most part were opposed to reduction, to declare for t a riff revision. · It is not fair to conc.lude, then, since none claimed that the rates were too low and d e sired them raised, and since the agitation all occurred about reG.ucing rates, that a reasonable construction of the pled g e warrants an in c rease. This construction was placed upon the platform by your campaigners, and votes were secured on the expre s theory that "tariff revision" as promised in the platform meant tariff reduction.

The President will be called upon to meet a supreme test of his fidelity to himself and tho e who trusted him and believed tax. in the promises of his party. When this bill goes to him for his signature, will he keep faith to the millions who attested their confidence in his honor and sincerity, or will he yield to the persuasion or compulsion . of those who regard promises made before election as not bindingafte1· election? Now is approaching the critical hour in the consideration of this legislation. Will the people or those who would prey upon them win? The world regards this ns a test of the efficiency of representative government in the United States. We have the power. Let us exercise it. If every man. here will vote as he conscientiously believes; if all Members who regard this measure as little or no improvement in existing law will fight it to the- finish, the cause of the public is not hopeless and the honor of this body may yet be vindicated. .

The sea of American political controversy is never in perfect calm. Its bosom is always disturbed by whirlpools and tossed by tempests. Sometimes its surface is · lurid with many lights that dance and gleam and dazzle, then vanish from the political mariner's sight. Occasionally the clouds part and the sun shines and a rainbow comes to beautify the brow of evening, while soft winds blow perfumed promises of safe and happy voyages to every craft afloat. Such hours pass all too soon. The light quickly dies from the heavens and the night robes . the sea in gloom, while the storm king heralds his advance with the lightning's flash and the thunder's roar. Far out at sea, between the island of "Longed For” and the realm of "Never Shall Be," many a goodly vessel loses its bearings and drifts a hopeless derelict with broken masts and fallen . spars. The shores of the political sea are strewn with ghastly corpses of hopes thrown overboard and washed ashore. Along the beach lie scattered shattered hulls and broken beams. Its bottoms I hold in close embrace rich cargoes of unrealized ambitions.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican pa1·ty to-day is at sea in a floundering ship, tempest tossed~ its sails torn, . and its masts broken, with blind or drunken helmsmen at the wheel It is making; for any old port of the . political sea, whether th . ere is a bar . bor or I not.. [Applause on the: Democratic side.I · u will appropriate the politi~ thunder o:f William J. Bryan, whom it has denounced as an anu.rcbist, and then solemnly come before the American Congress and ask the Members here to support his ideas. There are men in this Chamber who owe William J · . Bryan an apology. It is not my province or duty to deliver them a lecture, but I say to you that if I bad denounced a man aS-an anarchist, as you . did~ Mr~ Speaker, in 1896; if I had gone into my State and cried out against seating in the President's chair an ruu:t.rchist; if I and my party, against my will, had been driven by public opinion to adopt his ideas, I would take off my hat to him and say, ••William, you a.re · not so bad a m a n as I dreamed you were. I am the bad man myself..'' [Applause on the Democratic side.]

l\fr. Speaker, do you honestly believe that the purpose in passing this resolution is to provide for an income . tax? Do you not want to wait until the people quit talking - about it and then go before the legislatur e s of the States and beat it7 Why not adopt the Henry amendment and submit it to conventions? Then it would be ratified. Do you not know as a lawyer that if a similar bill to that of 1894 went · before the Supreme Court of the United States you could hardly get a lawyer to appear there and say on his professional opinion that it was an unconstitutional act? When men from the great cities of this country, men who have all their lives represented corporate interests, appear here and repudiate the decision of the Supreme Court in that case, I say to you it is only because the American people Ila•e long ago re p udiated it. It is time this old, slow, dragging House of Representatives, which never does anything until it f ee ls the whip and spur of · public opinion, should lift up its head and assume the authority the makers of this Government int en ded it should exercise. I thank the House for the extension of my time and for the attentive hearing given me. [Applause on the Democratic side.] •

1\!r. LO~GWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman f rom Ohio [1\fr. CoLEr. _

Mr. COLE. lli. Speaker, I have no intention of discus s ing the merits of this proposition. I simply desire to interj ec t a f e w ob s ervations drawn from the spee c h of the gentleman from A.rk a nsa [Mr. ROB I NSON]. I am always delighted with his magnifice n t appearance upon the floor of this House and his very emphatic and effective method Of deliYery, and to-day WUS no exc e ption to that general rule. He has certainly given us an exp os ition of the Democratic side of this question that will" stand long in history as an unpa1·alleled example of classic political li tera tu re.

Now, the particular section that I wish. to call your attention to in the Democratic platform is the one relative to an income

Mr. ROBINSON. Will the g e ntleman yield for a question? l\fr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. ROBINSON. Do ' es the gentleman indorse that platfor~ he is now standing on?

Mr. COLE. I indorse part of it, and part of it I repudiate. Mr. Speaker, here is the section on the income tax in the Democratic pl a tform :

We favor an income tax as pa.rt of our revenue system, and we urge the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing Congress to levy and collect a tax upon individual and corporate incomes, to the end that wealth may bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the Federal Government.

Now, :Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from .Arkansas contends that the Republican party is supporting this proposition at this time because it merely means · postponement. What did the Democratic party mean when it inserted that plank in their platform? If that is a gold brick that the House of Representatives is handing out to the American public, who manufactured the gold brick? It had its origin in the Democratic platform at Denver, and was not constructed and foisted upon the country by the Republican party. So you can not charge the Republican party with being guilty of attempting to postpone the coming of an income tax in that way. That proposition is charged up against the Democratic platform at Denver.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I might presume upon the time of the House, I might add further, I am in favor, as I believe the Republican party everywhere is, of vesting this power in the Federal Government to be used as. the President says, perhaps, in a crisis when it might save the life of the Nation. We have come upon times in our · past history when it was necessary to resort to such methods of taxation, and it is not to be presumed that we will not meet with such crises. in the future. If that time ever does come, when it is necessary to exercise this power, it is well to enact the necessary legislation at this time. It is well to submit it in an amendment tct the people and ha.ve it incorporated as a section of the Federal Constitution, and we can rely upon it when the occasion demands. But if it is a subterfuge, as the gen.tleman from Arkansas contends, it was manufactured by the Democratic party.

Mr. ROBINSON. I would like to ask the gentleman if he is in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas, which seeks to submit it to conventions rather than to learn it to the legislatures?

Mr. COLE. Well, l\Ir. Speaker, there are two methods, as I understand it, of submitting a constitutional amendment, and I think it better to submit it through the channels already established · for that purpose.

1\lr. ROBINSON. Does not the gentleman think if the amendment · of the gentleman from Texas were adopted that the resolution would be adopted?

Mr. COLE. I might also say this, that every co:nstitutional amendment to our Federal Constitution, as I understand, has gone through these regular channels and has been adopted by state legislatures instead of by public conventions called for that purpose.

l\Ir. ROBINSON. Will the gentleman yield to a further question? I will ask you a direct question, and you need not answer it unless you choose. Does not the gentleman think that the plan of submitting the resolution to the legislatures will result in certain failure, and does not the gentleman also think that in submitting it to conventions, as contemplated by the Henry amendment, it would result in the certain passage of the resolution? · l\fr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, it will result in leaving it to the States · to have their will. . Mr. ROBINSON. Which will be to defeat it. Now, another question. · l\fr. COLE. Are you not in favor of the States exercising their judgment in this?

~~r. ROBINSON. I am in favor · of getting an income tax, and the gentleman from Ohio is advocating a plan of submitting it in a way that it can not become law. I am in favor of submitting it under a plan by which it will become law .

l\lr. COLE. I am in fa rnr of submitting this proposition in the method provided by the Constitution and the laws .

l\lr . ROBINSON. Does not the Constitution provide both methods?

l\Ir. COLE. And we have the right of exercising our own judgment. . l\Ir. ROBINSON. And you say on one side that you want the income tax, and you will not vote for an amendment that will give you the income tax. . Mr. COLE. I am for the passage of this amendment in the only way that it has ever been done, and in the judgment of the best men the best way.

l\lr. ROBINSON. Well, I am not undertaking to tell who are the best men. I think we are both good fellows, but differ very materially upon this.

l\lr. LO . r"'"GWORTII. I yield flrn minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [l\1r. HOBSON].

1\1r. HOBSON. l\1r. Speaker, I am in favor of this resolution , and I expect to do my utmost to have the State of Ala­ history. bama the :first State in the Union to ratify the income-tax amendment. [.Applause on the Democratic side.] It" is impos possible to state in th~ five minutes allotted to me the many weighty reasons that commend this measure to my judgment. In the fir t place, it is part and parcel of the · Democratic platform and carries out the Democratic doctrine of equal burdens. I do not know whether the amendment will be adopted as a result of this resolution, as the legislatures of only 12 Stat e would be sufficient to defeat it. Indeed, I do not know wh et her Republican leader -some of them, at least-have favored the resolution as a means of securing an income-tax.law or laws. of preventing such a law; but I think the unanimity of indorsement in both Houses of Congre s is a full vindication of the righteousness of such a law, and the Republican adoption of this Democratic mea ure is a matter upon which the country is to be congratulated. The l> 0 benefits of government are enjoyed :mu the work of government is carried on in large measure for the protection of citizens in the accumulation and use of wealth The taxation of wealth, therefore, has been recognized by all nations a wi e and just. Taxes upon incomes represent the least burdensome of all taxes on wealth, and the burdens decrea e with the size of the income. There is perhaps one exception, an inheritance tax, and in this idea of equalization of burdens and hard hips, I nm in favor of both such taxes and of · both such taxes in a graded form; that is, a graded income tax and a graded inheritance.

This measure, l\lr. Speaker, takes us to the heart of the great eternal question of taxation, that remains with all civi- . lized peoples as long as government last. There are two general classes of taxation, direct and indirect . .As a rule, the direct form of taxation in .America has been relegated to State, county, and city, and the indirect method has been largely adopted by the National Government. 1\fy investigations have convinced me, Mr. Speaker, that in a free country direct taxation is immeasurably better than indirect taxation.

I believe that this measure is a wise movement in the direction of substituting direct taxation for indirect taxation . I realize that it is easier for governments to raise money by indirect taxation, and for that reason the governments of the world have adopted that system generally. It is more irksome to collect a direct tax, and sometimes it seems to work a hardship upon the people taxed; but I believe that a patriotic people who control their own government are willing to pay the just taxes needed for its support, when economically administered. .A prime advantage of the direct method is that the people know when they are being taxed. To - day I am sure that the great masses of the American people have not the slightest idea how many times in the day they are being taxed for all the comforts, conveniences, and necessities of life . If they were aware of the frequency, the magnitude, and scope of this taxation, they certainly would not submit to the greater part of it beyond one national election. If the people were fully informed on the taxation thereby imposed, they would not submit to such tariff schedules as have been in effect for many years and such _ as are now carried by the present bill.

Another prime advantage of a direct tax is that it enables a people to know how much they are being taxed, and only when they have such knowledge can they prevent abuse of the taxing power. To-day I do not believe our people have the slightest idea of the amount of taxation that is levied upon them. One, 2, 3 per cent is considered a sore burden, yet to-day our people are taxed 10, 20, even 30 per cent, and do not know it. Still a third prime advantage of a direct tax is that we know where the tax goes. In the present juncture the bulk of the taxation of the American people does not go to the Government of the American people. I will illustrate: There are about 200,000 tons of pig iron imported into the United States in a year. The indirect tariff tax causes the Government to get the impost duty from 200,000 tons. The country consumes about 25,000,000 tons, the price of all of which is raised to the extent of the tariff. The net result is that the pig-iron tariff gives the tax on 200,000 tons to the Government and the tax on 24,800,0 0 tons to certain favored individuals, practically giving over to individuals the sovereign right of taxation that can only reside justly in the Government itself. When the people are taxed, they ought to know who gets the tax, and they would know under a system of direct taxation. .A fourth prime advantage of direct taxation is that it would be more adjustable to the legitimate needs of the Government. and it would tend to a more economical and efficient admini s tration of the Government. When taxation is levied without a view to the needs of government, then at times there is liable to be a . deficit in the National Treasury, in which case the credit of the Government may be shaken and panics may result, as has been the case more than once in our country’s .At other times there may be a surplus, a surplus larger than necessary. Such a surplus being injurious to business, there is a tendency on the part of the Government to reduce it by enlarging expenditures, leading to policies of extravagance.

I realize that the expenses of the Government should natu- rally increase year by year with the growth of population and the work of government, but there have been increases in the expenditures of government in the last five or ten or fifteen years which are out of all proportion to such growth, due in large measure to the accumulation of the surplus under tariff I believe, l\fr. Speaker, for these reasons that as a settled policy we should gradually work toward a substitution of direct taxation for indirect taxation in America. The result would be an enormous reduction in taxation, to the great relief of our people, in reducing the cost of living. We would know when we were being taxed how much we were being taxed, who was being taxed. The Government would then get the tax, and being held to stricter responsibility, the taxes would be adjusted to the needs of government, which, held to stricter accountability, would be more economically administered. [.Applause on the Democratic side.]

l\fr . LONGWORTH. I yield five minute to the gentleman from Michigan [l\1r. DIEKEMA].

Mr. DIEKEMA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from .Arkansas [l\Ir. ROBINSON], in one of his magnificent flights of eloquence, which do him such great credit and which also reflect credit upon this House in general, made this inquiry. Said he: " Whoever in all this country heard of a millionaire going to war himself?" L · et me answer him that . from the State of Michigan alone during the last Spanish war I know of at least two millionaires who went to war . Let me remind him of the fact that President Roosevelt's Secretary of the Navy, ~fr. Truman H. Newberry, who is many times a millionaire, went to war.

Mr. ROBINSON. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. DIEKEMA. Certainly?

Mr. ROBINSON. Let me ask, then, if those gentlemen were listed on the tax rolls at the time they went?

1\Ir. DIEKEMA. They were listed on the tax rolls, paid their taxes, and were millionaires. Let me tell the gentleman also that young James H. McMillan, also a millionaire, went to that war, did his full duty as a soldier, and lost his life from a dread disease there contracted. Thank God a man's patriotism in this country is not measured either by his poverty or }\is wealth, but by his Americanism. [Prolonged applause.]

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state to the gentleman that I am perfectly willing to make the exception he has stated.

Mr. DIEKEMA. The gentleman will make further exception, for let me tell him further that Alger, Joy, Hendrie, and others, all sons of millionaires of the city of Detroit, in my State, were among the first to enlist in that war, and every one of them honored the uniform which he wore. Make another exception, my friend. There was no blood too blue, no wealth too great, no business too absorbing for the patriotic American to sacrifice for his country when the call to arms was sounded. What I have said of Michigan can be duplicated in every State of the Union. Let me tell you further that the most dangerous thing which any statesman can do is to arouse class prejudice in this country. All men are entitled to equal consideration under the law, whether they are millionaires or whether they beg at the doors of millionaires.

Mr. ROBINSON. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. DIEKEMA. Certainly.

Mr. ROBINSON. I accept the gentleman's statement. But does he not think the millionaire ought to pay his share of the expenses of the Government in times of peace as well as in times of war?

Mr. DIEKEMA. Most certainly . If the gentleman from Arkansas will arrange the laws of his State as we have arranged the laws of our State, all property, whether corporate or individual, realty or any other form, will pay its just share of taxation.

Mr. ROBINSON. Have you an income-tax law in your State?

Mr. DIEKEMA. There is none. Let me say, further, Mr. Speaker, that generally the gentleman from Missouri, the learned judge, Mr. DE ARMOND, is logical and judicial in his expressions. I could hardly believe that the learned judge was speaking today when he said that it is the business of Congress, of the House and the Senate, to interpret the constitutionality of the bills which we present. That is true in the first instance; but it is not true after the Supreme Court has spoken, and that is the situation which confronts Congress to-day.

The fathers of the Republic, the authors of the Constitution, were most careful upon one proposition, and it was this: That the liberties of the people might be protected through giving to the executive, the judicial, and the legislative departments each its proper sphere of activity and action.

The Supreme Court has spoken; Congress has spoken. The Supreme Court has said that Congress passed a law that was unconstitutionaL Congress acted within its sphere when it passed the law, and the Supreme Court acted within its sphere and within its powers when it said that that law was unconstitutional. That opinion confronts us to-day.

Mr. JAMES. Will the gentleman yield for an interruption?

Mr. DIEKEMA. I will.

Mr. JAMES. Does not the gentleman think that Congress has as much right to ask the Supreme Court to return to the precedents of that court of a hundred years' standing on the constitutionality of an income tax as the Supreme Court had a right to depart from those precedents?

Mr . DIEKEMA. When we pass a statute and the Supreme Court passes on the statute and says that that individual statute is unconstitutional, then we must bow to the power that has been given that department of the Government by the Constitution to interpret the laws which we pass. Any other ( J doctrine i anarchy, and nothing else. [Applause on the Republican side.]

The power to levy an income tax should be possessed by Congress, for it may some time be needed to save the very life of the Nation. Let us then make it pos ible for the States to write the authorization into the Constitution. The Supreme Court now declares an income tax unconstitutional. It would not declare so then.

Why fly in the face of the Supreme Court and hold out a delusive hope to the people when the remedy is in our own h.:md ? To do so would justly subject us to the charge of in~ sincerity, and would probably leave the country without the needed revenue upon which we had depended.

In ordinary times reasonable duties levied on imports, together with the internal-revenue tax, ought to pay the running expenses of the Government. This was the conviction of the fathers. Extraordinary expenses may be taken care of by other means, but the revenues never should be so large as to tempt Congress to extravagance. There is a growing and very dangerous tendency on the part of our people to look to the Federal Government for all kinds of improvements which the States should make. This encourages extravagance and endangers our institutions. I am for the amendment because I believe it is a necessary power, but after it has been bestowed, I would always insist upon its most careful exercise.

Ur. HAMLIN. Mr. Speaker, when this bill was being considered in the House, I voted for a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem on hides, and on that vote I have been criticised by a few unfriendly newspapers. I do not rise to offer any apology for that vote. I believed then, and I believe even stronger now, that under the existing conditions I voted right.

That there may be no excuse for any misunderstanding of my position, I will repeat what I have often said heretofore, that if I could have my way about it I would gladly put hides, boots, shoes, harness, and in fact all of the products of leather, upon the free list, because I believe that with free hides the shoe and harness makers of this country could compete with the world without a dollar of tariff upon their products. However, I will not vote to put hides, the product of the farmer, on the free list, and thereby cheapen what he has to Sell, while your party, Mr. Speaker, keeps the . tariff on shoes, harness, and all products of leather, thereby increasing the prices of those things which the farmer is compelled to buy.

The farmers constitute a "Very large majority of the real wealth producers of this country, and I undertake to say that no man with a proper regard for the truth will deny that no class of people has been as persistently discriminated against in tariff legislation as has the farmer. I am his friend, and I am proud of it. I was born and reared on the !arm. I have plowed, I have planted, I have sown, I have reaped, and I know that the farmer literally "earns his bread in the sweat of his face," but I have never ceased to be thankful that I was born and reared on the farm. I naturally had, as my associates boys and girls situated as I was, whose hearts and minds had not become cont..'lminated by the multitudinous sins which so often tempt the less fortunate boys and girls of our cities . I also had the advice and counsel of men whose lives had been spent in close communion with nature and nature's God; . men who loved uprightness and integrity; who always · expected to give full consideration for every dollar which they received. Therefore I believe that I know what the farmer wants, at least I know something of his condition and his relation to national legislation, and so long · as I shall remain a Member of Congress ;r shall do what I can to see that he receives fair and equal treatment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, was my vote wrong on hides? Let us see. This bill carries a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem on boots and shoes and 40 per cent ad valorem on harness for the benefit of the manufacturer of these articles, and yet he is not satisfied, but wants hides put on the free list so that be may buy his mw material cheaper; and if we pass a law which enables the manufacturer of these articles to buy his raw material from the farmer cheaper than he buys it now, it must certainly follow that the farmer must receive less for what he has to sell, but it will not necessarily follow that the manufacturer will sell what he makes out of this raw material one penny cheaper. In fact, prior to 18D7, when · hides were on the free list, shoes were as high then as they have been since that time, and yet there has been a. duty on hides of 15 per cent ad valorem since July, 1897.

Mr. Speaker, we must not get the question of raw material confused. What is raw material to one person is often the finished product of another. The leather is the raw material of the boot, shoe, and harness maker, but it is the finished product of the tanner. The hide is the raw material of the tanner, but it is the finished product of the farmer and cattle raiser. Now, if the manufacturer ought to hu·e a tariff upon his finished prodnct-his shoes-why ought not the farmer and the cattle raiser to have a duty on their finished products-hides? But some people think that the shoe manufacturer ought to have a tariff on his finished product, because his capital is invested in his business . Do you forget, or is it a matter about which you are indifferent, that the farmer has his capital invested. in his cattle and in his farm; that it costs him money with which to raise corn and hay to feed his cattle; that it costs him money to buy wire with which to fence his pastures, to &1.y nothing of the fact that he works not only eight hours each day, but, in fact, from the early dawn of morning until the twilight of evening?

Not only that, l\Ir. Speaker, but your party taxes the farmer on everything that he has to buy. He is taxed on his lumber out of which he builds his home; he is taxed on his nails and his shingles, his window glass, even down to the cement that enters into the foundation of his home. Nor does it stop here. He is taxed upon the furniture which he puts into his home, his carpets, his lace curtains, his cook stove and all kitchen utensils, his clothing, his farm implements, in fact, every necessity of life which he is compelled to buy, even to the caskets that contain all that is mortal of his loved ones. And yet the maw of the trust is not satisfied, but wants to take away from him the little negligible duty which he has on the hides of the cattle he raises. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that it now appears that this influence will be strong enough to succeed, and your party, as usual, unmindful of the interests of the farmer, will, when this bill becomes a law, put hides on the free list for the benefit of the leather trust, but you will not . do so by the aid of my vote.

I repeat, let us take the tariff off of all leather and products of leather or else leave it on all, including the material out of which leather is made.

The statement is made by the leather trusts of the country that the packers, designated as the "meat trust," control the hide market of the country, and therefore hides ought to be put upon the free list in order to punish this trust. l\Ir. Speaker, I am sure that there is no man on the floor of this House who is more opposed to the trusts or who will go further than I to encompass their destruction, but I do not believe that the socalled "meat trust" controls the hide market of this country. But, if it does, I am sure that the leather trust controls the leather market of the country; and if a vote for a tariff on hides is a vote in the interest of the · meat trust, then I sub ­ mit that a vote for free hides is a vote in the inteerst of the . leather trust. So, on this proposition, a man would be "between the devil and the deep ~ea ."

But what are the facts? The official figures, furnished by the department, show that there are annually marketed about 14,000,000 hides, exclusive of the hides of calves, goats, and sheep. Out of that number the so-called "me a t trust" an ­ nually markets about 5,000,000 hides, leaving about 9,000,000 hides marketed each year by the farmers, independent packers, and butchers of the country. From these facts I do not see how it is possible for the meat trust to control the hide market, when they handle only about one-third of the hides of the country annually. But the leather trust of this country handles all of the leather made from all of the hides and will, if hides are put upon the free list, control the prices of all the hides of the country.

In the light of these facts we can easily see why this gigantic and pernicious lea tber trust is making such an herculean effort to get hides upon the free list. We can understand why this leather trust is maintaining this great propaganda, with their agents infesting the very corridors of this Capitol, sending out millions of circulars to the retailers of leather goods imploring them to "write your Congressman and Senator to-day to vote to put hides upon the free list." Many good men who are engaged in retailing leather goods, without stopping to · give the matter careful consideration, give heed to this seductive appeal, believing that it will be to the interest of the consumer, and write us to vote to put hides upon the free list. l\Ir. Speaker, a few days ago I received through the mails-­ as I presume the other Members did-a statement from the New England Shoe and Leather Association, of Boston, .Mass., in which they make the remarkable and incongruous statement that a tariff duty on boots and shoes will not add one penny to the prices of sh oe s to the consumer, but that a duty of 15 per cent on hides would add from 25 to 50 cents per pair to the price of the shoes. And this statement is made in the face of the fact that the rate on hides in this bill is the same as the rate in the present law, which has been in existence since 1897. A cursory glance at this statement will convince any reason- · able man that it is not true, but must, of necessity, be absolutely false. To say that a duty of 15 11er cent ad valorem on " hides, which is no increa e over the existing law, will increase · the price of shoes from 25 to 50 cents per pair, but that a duty of nearly double that amount on shoes will not increase the price of that article to the consumers a penny, is ridiculousness run mad. - In m n king this ,st a tement, the New England Shoe and Leather Association certainly presumed that the people of this country are fools, and that they could easily deceive them. Someo0dy is deceived in this statement, but it is not the people. This same leather association says that competition fixes the price of shoes. Then, if this be true a tariff on hides will only have the effect of giving to the farmer, who sells the cattle and hides, a small part of the profit which would otherwise go entirely into the pocket of the manufacturer.

I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, but that with free hides our manufacturers of shoes and harness can, without a ta.riff, compete with the world; and therefore I say that if you take the tariff off of shoes and harness and other products of leather, I will gladly vote to put hides on the free list. But, I repeat, that so long as you keep the tariff on the products of leather, I shall vote for a tariff . on hides, which the farmers and the cattle raisers produce. ·

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that if I had drifted with the tide and - voted for free hides, I would no doubt have escaped criticism inspired by the leather trust, but I had my own idea of what was equitable, right, fair, and just and I bad the courage of my convictions, a.nd whenever, if I shall ever reach the point where I shall be afraid to vote as I believe that I should vote, I will despise myself and voluntarily retire to private life. But, knowing that I represent a courageous and intelligent people, I know that they want their Representative to have an opinion of his own and the courage of his convictions. I am sure that they would rather that their Representative should make a mistake sometime and, perhaps, vote wrong, rather than to have him be a mere echo with no opinions of his own. I shall continue to have the courage of my convictions and vote as I see the right. I may be accused of displaying bad judgment, but I will not lay myself open to the charge of being a coward.

Mr. DIXON of Indiana. l\Ir. Speaker, to the Israelites, overwhelmed with sufferings and afflictions, the voice of Divinity pointed the road to their deliverance. To the Republicans-divided by internal di ssens ion , awakened by the tremendous burdens of tariff taxation, faithless to the trust reposed by a · forbearing people, and deaf to the promises made in its national platform, yet alive to the threatened rebuke of an outraged constituency-the Democratic platform has pointed to the legislation upon which the party in power hopes to escape the disastrous defeat its broken promises and faithless betrayal of the people's confidence have caused it to so richly deserve. The proposition of submitting the amendment to the Constitution for an income tax was taken boldly and bodily from the Democratic platform of 1908. That platform is as follows:

'Ve favor an income tax as part of our revenue system, and we urge the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing Congress to levy and collect tax upon individual and corporate incomes, to the end that wealth may bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the Federal Government.

This is not the first instance in which the Republican party has . purloined the principles and platform of the Democratic party in order to meet the demands of the American people. A few years ago President Roosevelt sent a message to Congress and succeeded in securing legislation for the regulation of railroad rates and enlarging the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission. No such proposition had prior to that time ever been suggested or advocated by the Republican party in any of its conventions. But two successive Democratic conventi on s-­ in 1900 and 1904-had declared for the proposition. The measure received the united support of the Democratic party , and was piloted through the Senate under Democratic leadership solicited by the President, in order to secure its passage over Republican opposition. If he had been half as true to the Democrats assisting him as they were to the cause, a better and stronger measure would have been enacted.

The Republican party claimed full credit for the measure, and it was its chief reliance for support in the succeeding campaign, although the mea ure had been popularized by Democratic discussion before it had been adopted by the Republican party. Now the same course is proposed in the pending resolution. The income tax has never been advocated by the Republican party since its repeal in 1872, never received respectful treatment in any of the conventions of that party, and it is only after the Democratic advocacy of this method of taxation has made it popular that this legislation is pressed to the bosom of Republican . leaders who have always heretofore denounced it as anarchistic and unworthy of serious consideration by that party. It is a serious question whether their support is sincere or whether this is not a measure calculated to dispose of the issue without any intention of seeing the amendment carried. Will the leaders on the other side of the House pledge themselves to enter, when they return home, upon an earnest and active campaign to secure the immediate ratification of this amendment by the legislatures of their respective States? With the Democratic States almost certain to adopt this amendment, . such is the influence of these Republican leaders with their people at borne that their favorable action would assure the adoption of this amendment beyond the peradventure of a doubt.

Up to date these leaders refuse to amend the tariff bill by adding an income-tax provision on the theory that it would be unconstitutional. Some of the best lawyers in and out of Congress s agree that ucll an amendment would be constitutional, and so strong has grown the demand for this legislation that su c h an amendment would have been added in the Senate had not those opposed . to the measure propo s ed a substitute in the nature of a corporation tax. The President strengthened the for c es of those wishing to defeat the income tax by sending a me s sage advocating and advising a corporation tax, which is a step toward our general income tax. Many who were opposed to both chose the latter as at least the safest course to beat the income tax.

At Columbus, Ohio, on August 19, 1907, 1\lr. Taft in an ad dress said:

A graduated income tax would also have a tendency to reduce the motive for the a c cumulations of enormous wealth, but the Supreme Court has held :rn income tax not to be a valid exercise of power by the Federal Gov e rnment. The objection to it from a practical standpoint is its inquisitorial character and the premium it puts on perjury. In times of gr e at national need, howev e r, an income tax would be of great assistance in furni s hin g means to carry on the Government, and it is not free from doubt how the Supreme Court, with changed membership would view a new income-tax law under such conditions. The court was nearly ev e nly divided in the last case, and during the civil war great sums were collected by an income tax without judicial interference and, as it was then supposed, within . the federal power.

When acceptiI"g the nomination of the Republican party as ' as candidate for Pr e sident, July 28, 1908, less than one year ago, he said:

The Democratic platform demands two constitutional amendments one providing for an income tax and the other for the election of Sena: tors by the people. In my jud g ment an amendment to the Constitution for an income tax is not necessary.

At that time, and prior to the election, -1\ir. Taft did not think that an amendment to the Constitution for au income tax was necessary, and that "an income tax can and should be devised which under the decisions of the Supreme Court will conform to the Constitution."

The Democrats will give this resolution their united support but they think now, like Mr . Taft expressed himself less than ~ year ago, that an income tax can be devised without waiting for the tedious and uncertain result of submitting this amendment to the separate States, when a mere refusal to act by 12 States will result in its defeat. . ·

The tariff-tax system has gradually turned over the earnings of the masses to the comparatively few favored individuals who are specially benefited by this system of taxation. This favored class would be compelled to contribute their share to the support of the Government by an income tax. The tariff tax is levied entirely upon consumption . The laboring man must expend his income for food, fuel , clothing, and tools of industry, and these taxes are hea -vier upon the necessities . The incomes of the rich escape federal taxation. Governments are constituted for the purpose of securing to mankind personal liberty. security, and the rights of private property. The Government protects the property of the rich and poor alike, and the former should pay their share toward supporting the General Government. In 1872 Senator Sherman said in the Senate:

A few years of further experience will convince the whole body of our people that a system of national taxes which rests the whole burden of taxation on consumption and not one cent on property or income is Intrinsically unjust. While the expense of the National Government is largely caused by the protection afforded to property it is but right to require property to contribute to the payment of those expenses. ft will not do to say that each person consumes in proportion to his means. ".!'bis is not true. Everyone must see that the consumption of the rich does not bear the same relation to the consumption of the poor as the income of the one compares to the wages of the other. As wealth accumulates this injustice in the fundamental basis of our system will be felt and forced upon the attention of Congress. •

The income tax is a measure of justice. The people wiU pay in proportion to their financial ability to pay. It will tax wealth in proportion to its abundance rather than poverty according to its ne c essities. Federal taxation is not levied upon the wealth of the country. It is imposed by way of taxes. internal-rev e nue duties levied upon liquors and tobacco used; and tile import duties levied upon the clothing used and articles necessary for their comfort. The millionaires pay only on what they eat, drink, wear, and on what they use, and this is true of the poorer citizens likewise . . . ' The wealthy man makes no other contribution to the support J of the Government; nothing for the army which protects his wealth; nothing for the judiciary which · settles his property rights; nothing to the support of the administrative department of the Government which executes the law that insures the safety of his property. They pay upon the necessities of life as the poor man does, and contribute more only as their necessities are larger. The Payne-Aldrich bill carefully forces from the latter a smaller contribution upon the articles which he uses than the articles used by his poorer neighbor. . It is not even suggested that wealth should pay all the taxes, but it is both rea onable and just that it should bear a portion, at least, of the public burden. It has ever been the pride of the Democratic party that it was the poor man's party and has ever fought for his rights . Our party has ever contended that the burdens of the Government should be at least partially shifted from the backs of the poor to those who can bear it ; to divide these burdens between wealth and consumption; to divide them between the man who has nothing but his labor and the man who has incomes many times greater, derived from fortunes made by others; to compel the men who are wealthy by reason of tariff legislation to divide th~ burdens of the Government with the people whose earnings are compelled to flow by legislation to increase the wealth of the favored beneficiaries.

Our party would protect the poor and rich alike . We make no fight upon wealth. It should be protected to the same extent as the property of the poor . It will protect and guard the property of au, but it would never neglect the rights of the poor to satisfy the avarice of wealth, but would force all alike to contribute to the support of the Government that both may enjoy its blessings, and both should help carry its burdens . "Equal and exact justice to all."

The position of the Democratic party is that Government has not the right to levy taxes of any kind except for the support of the Government honestly and economically administered. That not a cent should be taken from the people but enough to pay the expenses of the Go-vernment, and especially should the burdens of taxation be not placed upon the many for the especial benefit of a favored few. Under the pernicious system of taxation provided in our Republican, tariff laws, the wealth of the coun ­ try has gradually accumulated in the bands of the favored ' few . This system has made millionaires from money drawn from all of the people. After the civil war the Republican party readjusted the system of taxation and relieved the rich by repealing the tax upon incomes and instead increased the taxes upon the poor. For e-very dollar that goes into the Treasury from the customs duties $20 go into the hands of the benefici ­ aries of the law . The proposed Payne-Aldrich bill will not lessen those unjust and forced contributions, but will only increase the amount taken from the people. ~

Cooley in his work on taxation says :

Taking everything together, nothing can be more just as a principle of taxation than that every man should bear his share of the burdens of government in proportion to his wealth.

We had an income tax during the war, and its first collection was in 1 8 63, when the amount collected reached two and threefourths millions of dollars. That law provided for a tax of 3 per cent on all inc?n.rns over $600 and not more than $10,000, and 5 per cent on mcornes above that amount . The law was amended sei; · several times during the war, and the largest amount collected in any one year was in 1867, when the amount was $66,- 017,429 . 34. The total amount collected from the income tax: . was $346,967,388.12. The law was finally repealed, and its repeal was the result of a united effort made by those who wanted high tariff rates and the main dependence of the Government to be upon its customs duties .

The Republican party had not then become the representative of organized wealth, and it had not yet become the servant of tariff beneficiaries. In 1894 the income tax was again ingrafted upon our statutes by a Democratic Congress, but it failed to receive the support of the R publican party, and was denounced as populistic and socialistic.

The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for June 28, 1894 (vol. 26, pt. 7, p. 6934), shows that every Republican Member of the present Senate who was in the Senate in 1894 voted to strike from the tariff bill the sections providing for an income tax. These Senators were ALDRICH, CULLOM, FRYE, GALLINGER, HALE, and PERKINS.

In the House were a large number of Members who are still serving here, and while the income-tax provision was not voted on as a separate proposition apart from the internal-revenue feature of the bill, yet none of the Republican Members now here recorded their Yot e s in its favor.

No Republican national platform ever declared for an income tax; n.o voice of approval or sympathy was e v er uttered in their conventions. The proposition was denounced by every Republican speaker in the cam p aign of 1896. The Democratic party has consistently and uniformly advocated the enactment of an income tax . President Roose-velt, in a message to Congress December 3, 1906, Eaj.d :

PRESIDENT RO O SEVELT ' S MESSAGE OF DECEMBER, 1906.

* • * In addition to the e there is e ver y r e a on why when next our system of taxation is revised, the National Government should impose a graduated inheritance tax and, if possible, a graduated income tax . The man of g.reat wealth · Owes peculiar obligation to the state, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of gov­ · ernm e nt . Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the prot e ction the state gives him. On the one hand it is desirable that -be should a s sume his full and proper , share of the burden of taxation. Where the men who vote the tax pay but little of it, there should be clear recognition of the danger- of inaugurating . g any such system save in a spirit of entire justice and moderation. Whenever we, as a people, undertake to remodel our taxation system along the lines suggested, we must make it clear beyond the p e radventure of a doubt that our aim is to distribute the burden of supporting the Government more equitably than at pres e nt; that we intend to treat rich man and poor man on a basis of absolute equality, and that we regard it as equally fatal to true democracy to do or permit injustice to the one as to do or permit injustice to the other. * * "'

the qu es question is undoubtedly very intricate , delicate, and troublesome. The d e cision of the court was only reached by one majority. It is the law of the land, and of course is accepted as such and loyally obeyed by all good citizens. Nevertheless, the hesitation evidently felt by the court as a whole in coming to a conclusion, wh e n considered together with the previous decisions on the subject, may perhaps indicate the possibility oi devising a constitutional income-tax law which shall substantially accomplish the results aimed at The difficulty of am e nding the Constttution is so great that . t only real nec e ssity can justify a reso r t tlle1· e to.

It is es ~ estimated that the Government would derive $80,000,000 from the · Bailey-Cummins amendment if enacted into law. This amount could then be taken from the taxes now raised by tariff duties and the burdens of the people to that amount be lessened. The high prote c tionists oppose receipts from other sources than the tariff, since it lessens the amount to be derived from protective duties and is an opening ''edge to the destruction of the mons t rous high duties of their tariff laws. The people, once even pa r tially relieved from excessive taxation, will not submit to its reestablishment, and, once in force as law, the income tax # would remain.

It · is \eTy doubtful whether the amendment will ever be adopted ; but as we can not force the Republicans to add to the tariff "bill an income-tax measure at once, we will support the joint resolution for the submitting of the question to the States as the only measure we can now secure from the leaders of the party in power . Their sincerity will be judged from their ac ­ tions hereafter w.hen the amendment comes for adoption before the legislatures of Republican States. A Democratic House of - Hcpre entatives would add the income-tax amendment to the tariff bill to-day, and the aroused public sentiment would force enough Republican votes in the Senate to join with the Democrats to pass the same in that body. It is plain to see how the people’s burdens would l>e lightened and their rights protected if our party had the votes to enact legislation.

Mr . AD.AIR. Mr. Speaker, it had not been my purpose to add another line to the debate on the pending tariff bill But, sir, I am so <le e ply impressed by the iniquitous provisions of the bill as it came from the Senate that in justice to myself and in justice · to the constituen c y I represent I take this opportunity to off e r my protest against its ena c tment into law. Four months ago Congress was called in extraordinary session to revise the tariff in pursuance of a · sacred pl e dge made to the people by the party in power. The evil effects of the Dingley law were so apparent to everybody that its repeal was demanded tiy men of all parties. The duties fixed by that law were so high that it had not only resulted in building up gigantic trusts, controlling almost every line of business, piling up tremendous fortunes wrongfully taken from the pockets of the people, but it also had depleted the Government Treasury until we were facing a deficit of $100,000,000.

The cost of the necessaries of life had soared so high that those who work for wages were ground down to a meager · living. The small manufacturers all over · the country were being driven to the wall by the trust combinations, and the people, . finally awakened, demanded an honest revision of the tariff downward . All political parties in their platforms prom ised to carry out the demands of the people if intrusted with power. The President declared in t ~ he Ea t and iii the West that the tariff should be re v ised downward, and the people took him at his word and elected him to the highest office within their gift.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us see what has been done toward a redemption of that pledge. We met on the 15th of l\lurcll, and the House proceeded to consider a revision of the tariff, and those in charge, who evidently were not in sympathy with the President or the promises he had made, forced the bill through the House under a rule which prevented the offering of amendments, except as to four items, leaving nearly 4,000 items standing in the bill as fixed by the standpatters who com prise the majority o f the Ways and Means Committee.

The Payne bill, as passed by the House, instead of being a revision dmvnwa r d, was a revision upward, anc1 carried a higher average duty than the Dingley bill . Whil"e the bill was under consideration i n the House, protests against its pa sage came from all parts of the count r y, and it was bitterly denounced by the D emoci·atic as well as the Republican press from one end of the country to the other as being a travesty upon justice and a palpable violation of a party pledge made to the people. Instead of reducing the duties on the ne c e s . aries of life, in order lliat the burdens of taxation might fall more lightly on the poore:r people, and increasing them on the luxuries consumed by the rich, the policy of those in charge seemed to be to make the taxes as high as possible on the masses and as low a pos "' possible on the special interests .

It is a shame and a disgrace, Mr . Speaker, that under our system of taxation the poor laboring man who has a wife and four o r five children to support contributes more toward the expenses of the Government than does the millionaire who is too proud to raise a family and has no one to clothe and feed except a wife and a poodle dog .

The State o f New York has a tax commission, consisting of 15 members, and that commission has made a report showing that the wealthy class of that State only pay tax on $1 out of $30, while the poor man, who can not cover up his property, i 1 pays tax on every dollar he is worth. There are no more loyal and patriotic people on earth than those who work for wages, and they are willing to pay their just share of the government expenses, but they do object to the wholesale di crimination against them through the enactment of le g islation intended to confer special privileges on a class of people whose hearts are as hard as granite and whose milk of human sympathy is more bitter than gall.

l\1r . Speaker, I hope I am not misunderstood. I am not an enemy of wealth . I want every man, rich and poor, old and young, high and low, to have the same opportunities and pri v i­ leges and the same protection under the law. I have great admiration for the man who, through honesty, economy, ability, and progressiveness, accumulates a large sum of mon e y, and under no consideration would I support a tariff bill which would tend toward striking down the industrial institutions of our country.

A large amount of capital in the hands of honest men with good intentions and purposes is a blessing to labor and a help to the country and to mankind . The fact is, modern civilization demands the employment of a large capital in carrying out our stupendous industrial enterprises . It is not the e xistence, but the abuse of capital that meets condemnation : :. md denunciation and calls for remedial legislation . When com · bine<l · capital in any hands abuses its legitimate powers, be· comes oppressive, or assumes the form of monopolies, it he· comes detrimental and dangerous to the Nation. It then affects injuriously every citizen, unless it be the few who fatten at the expense of the many. It then be c omes greedy, extortionate, monarchical in its tendencies and practices, and not _ only controls the industrial field, but invades the political field as wen, and the legislative halls, and seeks to corrupt both .

l\Ir . Speaker, I believe the future of this country depend s on the enactment of legislation that will give equal rights to all men and special privileges to none . Under our present syst e m of tariff taxation, and in the ab en c e of effe ct ive antitrust legislation, stupendous trusts and combinations h: . rrn sprung up, which have transferred a majority of the wealth of the country into the hands of a few people . TheTe s u rely is much alarm in the fact that 4,000 men now own over Si:> per cent of all the wealth of the country, and each one of the balance of the 9Q,OOO,OOO people owns less than $v00 in property. The re c ords show, sir, that 51 men, who have been the b e neficiari e. of special legislation, now own $4,000,000,000 of this coun t ry's wealth. It is a lamentable fact that one thirty-filth of the entire wealth of the United States is therefore concentrated in the hands of 51 men, and these men are to-day dictating the legislation of this special session of Congress .

Ah, Mr . Speaker, is not this a dangerous condition, and does it not demand the immediate attention of the American people? Every Member of this House must answer to his constituency ; and let him be judged not by what others have done, but by what he himself has done . If he has shown by his vote during this special session of Congress that he is in sympathy with those who seek special privileges at the expense of the · toiling millions, he does not deserve an indorsement by his constituency, and should be left at home, where he can do the country no harm, no matter f r om which political pa r ty h e comes.

1\lr . Speaker, while the bill was in the House I made the best effort I could, in my humble way, to secure an honest revision of the sched u les, keeping in mind the rights of both -the producer and the consume r. Every vote I cast was either u vote to lower the duty below the Dingley rate o r to place the item on the free list . Not in a si n gle instance did I -vote to continue the Dingley rate o r for a sin g le increase ; and I voted against the bill on its final passage for the reason that it was a re-vision upward in- lost stead of downward and was a violation of the pledge made to mind the people. - The bill then went to the Senate; and that body has made it so mu c h worse than the House bill that the people who denounced, rightfully and vigorously the , House bill would now be more glad to see Congre s s adjourn and let the Dingley rate stand, vicious as they are. The Dingley bill was bad, the Payne bill When was worse, and the Aldrich bill is infinitely worse than either are of them, and has justly aroused . the indignation of the people, Capitol. who were promised and expected relief from excessive taxation through a reduction of the schedules b 0 low the present rates. bear l\fr. Speaker, I heartily commend both Democrats and Repub- who li c ans in the Senate who made a terrific fight for an honest revision, and I earnestly denounce both Republicans and Democrat~ who joined with Senator ALDRICH in the passage qJ. a bill which is the most wicked of any tariff bill ever passed by an the I American Congr es s. I am exce e dip.gly glad of the fact that only l one Democratic Senator voted for the bill, and am also pleased I to note that Senator BEVERIDGE was one of ten Republican Senators who voted against it, and assigned as a rea on that it was class a violation of a party pledge and an injustice to the American J people. I was al o pleased with the active interest taken by Sen- 1 have · ator SHIVELY toward the reduction of duties all along the line. The action of the Senate in dealing with the tariff emphasizes is a the fact that we have too many millionaires in that body and that a few high-price funerals would be a good thing for the and country. As I am informed, there are now in the United States Senate 38 millionaires repre s enting over 140,000,000. What can the people expect at their hands but legislation designed to On aid the special-privileged class. I surely hope, Mr. Speaker, 25 that the day will soon come when Senators will be elected by a popular vote of the people, and that the United States Senate will no longer be the dumping ground for millionaires, who have nothing in common with the plain people. The past twenty-five the years has witnessed the enormous increase of individual and corporate fortunes in this country until the millionaire is no longer a rarity. This fa c t has served to develop the insolence who and arrogance of wealth until intellectual endowments a.re bill dwarfed in its sordid presence and moral character lies prostrate in its ruthless path.

The power to rule men by intellectual and moral force, the test of statesmanship of a former day, is fast passing away, rea while wealth, the uncrowned king, oftentimes lacking both and coveting neither, arrogantly seeks to rule in a domain where it is only fitted to s ene. Its altar has b e en erected in every community and its votaries are found in every household. Patriotism has given place to material expediency, and the love of country is supplanted by the love of money. An aptness for per- that centnges and the successful manipulation of railroads and stock bers boards are often regarded as the most essential of senatorial equipments.

:i.\Ir. Speaker, there is another element more dangerous to the 20 liberties of the people than that of individual wealth in its in- that fl.uence on the election of Senators. The wonderful growth of our country has been greatly accelerated by the combinations on of wealth in corporate forms. These in their proper spheres are to be encouraged rather than condemned; but when they leave bill. their legitimate fields of operation and seek to control, against the interests of the people, the legislation of the country, whether they be railroads, corporations, or trusts, or combines, re they will meet with the indignant protests of all true friends ;who of the people.

The number of employees in their control, the concentration are of great wealth in their treasuries render their advances most it enticing and their approaches most insinuating . Their interests are guarded by the ablest men of each community, and, if public PAYNE rumor be true, they can lay their hands on representatives of the people in many of the legislatures and claim them as their

If the people dare to seek relief from their exactions, , they are met by the agents of the corporations, who attempt to thwart the them at every step. All that shrewdness, audacity, and money be can suggest is readily at their command. The legislature is invaded, and the rights of the people give place to the exac- will tions of corporate power; while he who can serve the corpo- his rations by his control of a legislature, by intrigue, artifice, or law, I persuasion, against the demands of the people, is regarded in of I modern days as fully equipped for service in the United States Senate, where in that larger field his powers can be utilized for in the benefit of the corporations he serves.

The standard for the exalted position of United States Senator is thus debased by corporate influence. The wire-puller and the intriguer are often preferred to the statesman and the patriot, and the proud title of United States Senator has much of its power in the suspicions which lmk in the public as to · the mode, conditions, and requirements of their selection.

l\Ir. Speaker, I hope the day will soon come when the United States Senate will be composed entirely of men who represent loyalty and less wealth, more patriotism and less plutocracy; men who lorn their country more than their money. that body is so made up, such ta.riff bills as the one we now considering will never emanate from that end of the .Mr. Speaker, the bill as it comes to us from the S e nate will heavily on practically all the people, and es p ecially those work for wages. Senator LA FOLLETTE has shown that on clothing alone the people will be robbed of $120,000,000 annually, and this . is but one of a thousand items where similar extortions will be practiced. This bill will materially increase cost of living all along the line, and those who are now struggling to make both ends meet will find their task still harder. Practically all the necessities of life are heavily taxed under this bill, and the burdens are heaviest on the cheaper of goods consumed by the poorer people.

The cotton manufacturers are given a prohibitive duty and an absolute monopoly on their finished product. On $6.25 worth of cotton cloth, such as is used by the plain people, there tax of $1.57; under the Dingley law 100 yards of unbleached sheeting was taxed $4, while under this bill it is taxed $6.06, the same is true all through the cotton schedule. Three dollars worth of ordinary cotton stockings is taxed $1.65. While the cotton schedule is bad, the woolen schedule is worse. a woolen suit of clothes costing • 15, there is a tax of $G.SO; yards of worsted, valued at $60, are taxed $7.10; 25 yards of cheap flannel, valued at $ .75, are taxed $5.25; $7.50 worth of cheap woolen hats are taxed $4.76, and so it goes all through the woolen schedule. 'l'he e are only a few of the 4,000 items of bill , but they show the extent Senator ALDRICH and his followers are willing to go for the benefit of the highly protected industri e s of the New England States. It is estimated by those ar e in a position to know, that the duties carried in this will yield annually to the woolen manufacturers over $100- 000,000 in excess of what would be a fair profit; that th~ cotton schedules will enable the cotton manufacturers to charge $90,000,000 each year for their products more than would be a reasonable profit; and that the manufacturers of hosiery and gloves will be able to charge as long as they can hold their breath without danger of foreign competition.

l\lr. Speaker, you have sent this bill to conference without giving u . an opportunity of voting against the Senate amendments, and what may we expect from the conference . Even if committee had not been packed with "stand-pat" Memof both the House and the Senate, the best we could expect would be a compromi e between the Payne bill, which is a higher bill than the Dingley bill, and the Aldrich bill, which is per cent higher than the Payne bill. To be sure, however, but few of the 847 Senate amendments may get away, the Speaker has appointed on the conference committee only those the Republican side who at all times have stood for the highest duties and who are in hearty sympathy with the Aldrich Instead of selecting the House conferees in the order of their seniority, as was done in the Senate, the Speaker ignored Representatives HILL, of Connecticut, and NEEDHAM, of California, have stood for some reductions, and appointed Representatives CALDERHE.AD, of Kansas, and FoRDNEY, of Michigan, who standpatters" · of the most pronounced type. Therefore is safe to say that the bill as finally reported will be substantially the Aldrich bi11, and the name of the Hon. SERENO E. will forever be forgotten so far as tariff legislation is concerned. When the bill is finally acted upon, I shall vote again t it, to the end that I may not be held responsible for · such vicious legislation imposed upon an outraged public.

Mr. Speaker, I shall watch with much anxiety the action of President, who a snreu the country that the tariff should revised downward. While I am exceedingly anxious to get away, yet if the President will veto this outrageous measure, I gladly remain indefinitely and stand loyally by him until pledge is fully and completely kept. If this bill becomes a the sugar tru t will continue to rob the American people $55,000,000 annually, and the woolen manufacturers will continue to exact from the consumers over $100,000,000 each year excess of what is a fair profit; the United States Steel Company will continue to exploit the people of millions annually, while the 400 trusts set out in l\Joody's Manual will build up colossal fortunes wrung from the pockets of the -working people. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the laborer, who with his dinner bucket in his hand finds his way to his daily work, who will be compelled to pay more for the necessities · of life, and who ;already · has a hard time 'to feed and · clothe his family, I protest against the passage of this bill. On behalf of 9,000,000 poor working girl , who will · be · compelled to pay more for their dresse , .more for their hosiery and gloves, more for everything they wear, I earnestly protest against the passage of this unjust measure. In the name of the farmers, who will be compelled to sell on a free.trade market and buy on a protected market, and in the name of the retail merchants all over the country, who will be compelled to pay more for what they buy and charge more for what they sell, -which will involve them in much embarra s sment with their -patrons, I now protest .against the p a ssage of this iniquitous measure and confidently hap · e the President will keep his plighted faith with the people ancl veto the bill.