182 



CONGRESS. (THE TARIFF- BILL.) 



dale, Stone of Kentucky, Strait. Swanson, Talbert of 

 South Carolina, Talbott of Maryland, Tarsney, Tate, 

 Taylor of Indiana. Terry. Traeey, Tucker, Turner, 

 Tin-pin, Tyler, Warner. Washington, Weadook. Wells, 

 Wheeler of Alabama, Whitinir. Williams of Illinois, 

 Williams of Mississippi, Wilson of West Virginia, 

 \\ 'i>e. Wolverton, Woodard, the- Speaker 204. 



NAYS Adams of Kentucky, Adams of Pennsylva- 

 nia, Aitkon, AKlrk-h, Apsley, A very, Babcock, Baker 

 of Ne\v Hampshire, Bartholdt, Bartlett, Belden, Binjf- 

 ham. Blair, Boutelle, Bovvers of California, Broderick, 

 Brosius, Bundy, Burrows, Cadmus, Caldwell, Camp- 

 bell, Cannon of Illinois, Chickering, Childs, Cogs- 

 well, Cooper of Wisconsin, Cousins, Covert, Cum- 

 minirs, Curtis of Kansas, Curtis of Xew York, Dalzell, 

 Daniels, Davey, Dinsrley, Dolliver, Doolittle, Draper, 

 Ellis of Oregon, Fletcher, Funk, Funston, Gardner, 

 Gear, Geary ,'~Gillet of New York, Gillett of Massa- 

 chusetts, Grosvenor, Grout, Hager, Hainer, Haines, 

 Harmer, Ilartman, Haugen, Heiner, Henderson of Illi- 

 nois, Henderson of Iowa, Hendrix, Hepburn, Her- 

 mann, Hicks, Ililborn, Ilitt, Hooker of New York, 

 Hopkins of Illinois, Hulick, Hull, Johnson of Indi- 

 ana. Johnson of North Dakota, Joy, Kiefer. Lacey, 

 Lefever, Linton, Loud, Loudenslager, Lucas, Mahon, 

 Marsh, Marvin of New York, McCall, McCleary of 

 Minnesota, McDowell, Meiklejohn, Mercer, Meyer, 

 Moon, Morse. Murray, Nevvlands, Northway, Page, 

 I'ayne, Perkins, Phillips, Pickler, Post, Powers, Price, 

 Randall, Kay, Reed, Reyburn, Robertson of Louisiana, 

 Robinson of Pennsylvania, Russell of Connecticut, 

 Schermerhorn, Scranton, Settle, Shaw, Sherman, Sib- 

 ley, Sickles, Smith, Sperry, Stephenson, C. W. Stone, 

 W\ A. Stone, Storer, Strong, Tawney, Taylor of Ten- 

 nessee, Thomas, Updegratt, Van Voorhis of New York, 

 Van Voorhis of Ohio, Wadsworth, Walker, Wanger, 

 Wuugh, Wever, Wheeler of Illinois, White, Wilson 

 of Ohio, Wilson of Washington, Woomer, Wright of 

 Massachusetts, Wright of Pennsylvania 140. 



NOT VOTING Brattan, Graham, Hopkins of Penn- 

 sylvania, Houk of Tennessee, Milliken, Sipe, Stevens, 

 Sweet 8. 



The bill was reported in the Senate March 20, 

 and made the special order for April 2, when 

 Mr. Voorhees, of Indiana, chairman of the Finance 

 Committee, supported it in a speech defending 

 it as an effective revenue measure. It occupied 

 the attention of the Senate largely from that 

 time until its final passage ; and some interest- 

 ing discussions arose out of incidents in the 

 progress of the measure. A multitude of amend- 

 ments about 634 were proposed by the Senate 

 committee, and finally adopted, the chief of 

 which was the tax on sugar, on coal, and on 

 iron ore. 



In connection with the discussion of the sugar 

 tax, charges, made in the press in regard to 

 speculation in sugar certificates by Senators were 

 investigated, and the activity of the agents of 

 the sugar trust in influencing legislation became 

 the subject of severe criticism. An attempt was 

 made to show also that the administration was 

 pledged to the sugar tax, in return for partisan 

 service rendered by the trust. While little was 

 proved directly and in the nature of the case 

 little could be proved directly the whole matter 

 grew into something of a scandal, in which cer- 

 tain of the Senators were compromised. For 

 amount of revenue involved, as well as for other 

 reasons, the sugar tax was the most important 

 point in the measure. It carried with it the ab- 

 rogation of the reciprocity treaties of the former 

 administration and the abolition of the sugar 

 bounty provided for in the McKinley act. With 

 a singular inconsistency, however, the reciproc- 

 ity treaty with Hawaii was left in effect. 



Next to the sugar schedule the income-tax 

 provisions of the measure were the great subject 

 of discussion. Mr. Hill, of New York, based his 

 opposition to the bill mainly on the income tax 

 and made a strong fight to have it stricken out. 

 The question was brought to a vote, June 28. 

 In making the motion to strike out all sections 

 relating to the income tax, he presented the fol- 

 lowing summary of the arguments that he had 

 presented in detail during the progress of the 

 measure : 



" My objections to the retention of the income- 

 tax provisions in the bill may be summarized as 

 follows : 



" 1. An income tax has no legitimate place 

 in a tariff bill. It is unjust to those who desire 

 to support a revision of the tariff, but who can 

 not consistently or conscientiously favor an in- 

 come tax. If admissible at all it should have 

 been embraced in a separate measure. The ef- 

 fort to retain it in this bill has hindered, de- 

 layed, and sacrificed the cause of tariff reform, 

 and compelled the surrender of many essential 

 principles which should have accompanied a 

 genuine tariff revision. 



"2. An income tax is neither a Democratic 

 nor a Republican principle, and has never 

 been approved by the people at the polls, but is 

 one of the doctrines of the Populist party, the 

 votes of whose Senators in the Senate are ex- 

 pected to be the means of fastening it upon the 

 bill and upon the people. 



" 3. It is an unnecessary tax. The debate has 

 conclusively demonstrated the fact that the needs 

 of the Treasury will not require the proceeds of 

 this tax. but that sufficient revenues will be real- 

 ized under the other provisions of the measure. 

 No proper estimate has been furnished of the 

 revenues expected to be realized from this tax, 

 but it is blindly urged, without regard to antici- 

 pated revenues or consequences. 



"4. It is a direct tax within the true intent 

 and meaning of the Constitution, and, not being 

 laid in proportion to population, it is unconstitu- 

 tional, and can not be enforced. 



"5. It is unequal, unjust, and sectional in its 

 design and operation, and is principally urged by 

 the representatives of those States which will be 

 least affected by its provisions. It is an attack 

 upon the thrift, the energy, imd the enterprise of 

 the North rather than an honest effort to reach 

 the accumulated wealth of the country by consti- 

 tutional and just means. 



" 6. It is the revival of an odious war tax in a 

 time of profound peace. 



" 7. The exemption of all incomes not exceed- 

 ing $4,000 is an exemption unprecedented in the 

 history of income-tax legislation here or anywhere 

 in the world, and stamps the measure as the most 

 offensive species of class legislation. While os- 

 tensibly aimed at the rich, it permits one having 

 an investment of $80,000, drawing interest at 5 

 per cent., to escape all taxation under it. Whether 

 it injures the very rich or not, it clearly does not 

 help the poor. It is not based upon any consist- 

 ent theory. Either substantially all incomes 

 should be taxed or none at all. 



"8. It is unjust and indefensible in its dis- 

 criminations. It necessarily exempts the income 

 from $635,000,000 of Government bonds, but de- 

 nies the same exemption to State bonds. It ex- 



