172 



CONGRESS. (TAX REDUCTION.) 



fail to be a much more potent influence in secur- 

 ing peace in the archipelago a consummation 

 certainly most ' devoutly to be wished.' 



" The Cuban amendment does not seem to me to 

 be in accord with the solemnly declared and fre- 

 quently reiterated policy of the republic relative 

 to Cuba. Besides this,' it practically assumes 

 grave responsibilities which do not nmv exist. 

 The position which the republic now sustains to 

 Cuba is, I believe, fairly and truthfully stated by 

 the Supreme Court in the opinion in the Neely 

 case, in which the court says unanimously, speak- 

 ing through Mr. Justice Harlan: 



" ' The legislative and executive branches of the 

 Government, by the joint resolutions of April 20, 

 1898, expressly disclaimed any purpose to exer- 

 cise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over 

 Cuba, " except for the pacification thereof," and 

 asserted the determination of the United States, 

 that object being accomplished, to leave the (jov- 

 ernment and control of Cuba, to its oicn people. 

 All that has been done in relation to Cuba has 

 had that end in view; and, so far as the court is 

 informed by the public history of the relations of 

 this court "with that island, nothing has been 

 done inconsistent with the declared object of the 

 war with Spain/ 



" Again, giving a perspicuous judicial state- 

 ment of the clear duty of the United States in 

 this exigency: 



" ' But as between the United States and Cuba, 

 that island is territory held in trust for the in- 

 habitants in Cuba, to whom it rightfully belongs, 

 and to whose exclusive control it will be surren- 

 dered when a stable government shall have been 

 established by their voluntary action.' 



" The Cuban amendment, which is said to con- 

 tain our ultimatum to Cuba, does not, in my 

 opinion, contemplate surrendering ' exclusive con- 

 trol ' of Cuba to the ' inhabitants of Cuba,' for 

 whom the territory is now ' held in trust,' ' when 

 a stable government shall have been established 

 by their voluntary action ' ; but, on the contrary, 

 it seems to me that it clearly intends to perpetuate 

 our control over the island and its inhabitants." 



The motion to concur in the Senate amend- 

 ments was carried by a vote of 161 yeas to 127 

 nays; present 4, not voting 51. The army ap- 

 propriation bill was approved bv the President 

 March 2, 1901. 



Tax Beduction. A measure to amend "the act 

 to provide ways and means to meet war expendi- 

 tures and for other purposes," passed June 18, 

 1898, and to reduce taxation thereunder, was re- 

 ported in the House by Mr. Payne, of New York, 

 chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 

 early in the session. It was designed to cut doAvn 

 the revenue to the extent of $30,000,000 a year. 

 The Democratic minority held the opinion that 

 the reduction should be at $70,000,000; and there 

 was, moreover, a sharp difference of opinion as 

 to the particular taxes to be abolished or reduced. 

 Mr. Payne, after explaining the sc.ope of the meas- 

 ure, and giving in detail the reasons for the vari- 

 ous changes proposed, said: 



" Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit to the House and 

 to the committee with confidence that we have 

 done the right thing and gone to the last dollar 

 that we should go in this bill in the reduction of 

 war revenue. The minority of the committee say 

 that we should make a reduction of $70,000,000. 

 They do not give any reason for it. They do not 

 present any bill to the House in their report as a 

 substitute for the one we have presented here. 



" It is only a short time ago that the minority 

 of the committee contended that all this war- 

 revenue tax should go, and in place thereof there 



should be an income tax to be levied upon the 

 incomes of the country, overlooking the fact that 

 there is now upon the statute-books the Wilson 

 income-tax law, which has never been repealed be- 

 cause the decision of the Supreme Court has de- 

 stroyed it, and forgetting that if the new income- 

 tax law w r ent before the Supreme Court to-day 

 they would have the same court and the same de- 

 cision that they had on the Wilson bill. Why, 

 they have even dared to pose before the country 

 a portion of them in favor of going into a law- 

 suit to raise revenues to supply the deficiencies in 

 the Treasury which the $105,000,000 reduction 

 would leave, in order to get enough revenue to 

 run the Government. 



" Well, now, this side does not believe in any 

 such financial legislation as that. They propose 

 in their report to take more of the tax off beer. 

 They gave no reason for it. And they would take 

 the tax oil' tobacco until they reduce the revenue 

 by $70,000,000. I do not know but what that is 

 the Democratic doctrine. I remember under the 

 Wilson bill that we met a deficiency every 30th 

 day of June. I do not know but what that is the 

 financing of the Democratic party when they 

 come in here to-day and ask us to face a deficiency 

 in June, 1902, by taking off $70,000,000 of rev- 

 enue. 



" Oh, they say, the revenues are increasing. 

 Yes, but the increased revenue is because of the 

 increased prosperity of the country. You have 

 been predicting that the time would soon come 

 when that prosperity would cease. Still you pro- 

 pose to reduce the Avar taxation on the theory 

 that that prosperity is to continue during the 

 next four years. Well, I believe it will, so far 

 as our domestic matters are concerned, and any 

 internal arrangement confined to the people of 

 this country. I believe it will continue four years 

 as it has in the past; but there may be some 

 complications abroad that will stop it, and you 

 do not take that into consideration. 



" I do not want to see any deficit in the rev- 

 enues of the country. Gentlemen say you have a 

 large surplus in the Treasury. So we have 

 $140,000,000; .not all available probably $120,- 

 000,000 of it available. They say that will be in- 

 creased by the 30th of June. So it will. But is 

 it a part of your statesmanship to foster and keep 

 that in the Treasury against a future deficiency, 

 and then go to work deliberately and create that 

 deficiency? Gentlemen must remember that this 

 decrease in the revenue laws does not begin until 

 the first of the next year, and it will operate only 

 for a reduction upon the remainder of the fiscal 

 year and have small effect upon the amount of 

 money in the Treasury up to the 30th of June 

 next. It is for the future that we are looking 

 out. It is for the years 1902 and 1903, and when 

 we look to them I believe we have gone to the 

 limit of safety in reducing the war-taxes. We are 

 unwilling for the committee to go any further in 

 that reduction and run any risk on that account. 



" What are we going to do with the money in 

 the Treasury? We are going to adopt the good 

 old-fashioned Republican way of paying debts 

 with the money in the Treasury." 



It was proposed to amend the bill by removing 

 the tax on tea ; and in support of that policy Mr. 

 Glynn, of New York, said: 



" This demand for a reduction of the tax on tea, 

 Mr. Chairman, comes from every cottage in the 

 land, from every breakfast table, every dinner 

 table, every supper table, from every tea party, 

 where the neighborhood is roasted, friends criti- 

 cized, and the world remodeled over a steaming 

 cup of tea. It also comes from the circles of the 



