CONGRESS. (THE TARIFF BILL.) 



183 



ernpts $4,000 from the individual income of a 

 citizen derived from his general business, but de- 

 nies him the same exemption if his income is de- 

 rived from a corporate investment. It unneces- 

 sarily and injuriously discriminates against cor- 

 porate investments by individuals, especially 

 small investments. 



" 9. It is retroactive in its operation. It com- 

 pels the payment of a tax upon incomes realized 

 since Jan. 1, 1894, being at least six months be- 

 fore the passage of the act, which should only 

 apply to future incomes, if at all. 



i4 10. It usurps those fields of revenue which 

 properly belong to the States. Tariff taxation 

 being exclusively, under the Constitution, the 

 province of the Federal Government, it should 

 mainly confine itself to that method of raising its 

 necessary revenues without encroaching upon the 

 rights, prerogatives, and revenues of the States. 

 This measure not only provides for income taxa- 

 tion proper, but includes an inheritance and gift 

 tax, thereby trespassing upon a field already oc- 

 cupied by many of the States. Incomes, if taxed 

 at all, should be taxed by State rather than Fed- 

 eral authority. The States are suffering more from 

 lack of sufficient and proper revenues than is the 

 General Government. What are essentially local 

 revenues should be reserved for local purposes. 



" 11. Its provisions are inquisitorial and offen- 

 sive in their character. A citizen is compelled to 

 give evidence against himself, and to submit to 

 the production and inspection of his books and 

 papers. The political agents of the Government 

 are invested with vast powers which are liable to 

 abuse. Taxation may be increased 100 per cent., 

 and other severe penalties may be imposed. It 

 is a system of taxation adopted for a monarchical 

 government, but unsuited for a free republic. 



" 12. It violates the Constitution, because it 

 usurps those revenues derived from certain do- 

 mestic corporations which the States have them- 

 selves created, and the revenues of which corpora- 

 tions the States have set apart for the uses of 

 their own State governments. Those revenues 

 can not constitutionally be destroyed, dimin- 

 ished, or interfered with by the General Govern- 

 ment. The proposed tax is an attack upon the 

 sovereignty of the States, their reserved rights, 

 the doctrine of home rule, and every just princi- 

 ple of government for which we have ever here- 

 tofore contended. 



" 13. The absorption of these legitimate State 

 revenues by the General Government as here pro- 

 posed will necessarily lead to increased direct 

 taxation by the States, and add to the existing 

 direct burdens of the people. 



" 14. The tax proposed is double that recom- 

 mended by Secretary Carlisle. 



" 15. It will duplicate taxation, create friction, 

 and provoke conflict or contention between the 

 General Government and the States, is contrary 

 i to the established policy of the Government, is a 

 step toward socialism, and is unwise from every 

 point of political expediency." 



The motion to strike out was defeated by the 

 following vote : 



YEAS Aldrich, Allison, Chandler, Cullom, Dixon, 

 Dolph, Frye, Gallinger, Hale, Hawley, Higgins, Hill, 

 Hoar, McMillan, Manderson, Merrill, Murphy, Pat- 

 ton, Perkins, Platt, Proctor, Sherman, Smith, Wash- 

 burn 24. 



NAYS Allen, Bate, Berry, Blackburn, Blanchard, 

 Brice, Catfery, Camden, . Cockrell, Coke, Daniel, 

 Faulkner, George, Gibson, Gordon, Hansbrougli, 

 Harris, llunton, Irby, Jarvis, Jones of Arkansas, 

 Kyle, Lindsay, McLaurin, Martin, Mills, Mitchell of 

 Oregon. Pasco, Pett'er, Pettigrew. Power, Ransom, 

 Roach, Shoup, Teller, Vest, Vilas, Voorhees, Walsh, 

 White 40. 



NOT VOTING Butler, Call, Cameron, Carey, Davis, 

 Dubois, Gorman, Gray, Jones of Nevada, Lodge, Mc- 

 Pherson, Mitchell of "Wisconsin, Morgan, Palmer, 

 Pugh, Quay, Squire, Stewart, Turpie, Wilson, Wol- 

 cott 21. 



On July 2, in discussing the sugar schedule. 

 Mr. Mills, of Texas, said of the exemption of 

 Hawaiian sugar from duty : 



" I was a member of the House of Representa- 

 tives when the Hawaiian treaty was first made 

 in 1876. I voted against it, because at that time 

 the treaty was not only submitted to the Senate 

 of the United States, but to the House of Repre- 

 sentatives, as it was releasing the revenues of 

 the Government. I have spoken against it, I 

 have tried from that day to this to have it re- 

 pealed. 



" After it had run its length of seven years, it 

 was proposed to renew the treaty again, and the 

 House of Representatives was opposed to it. 

 Those who negotiated that treaty knew that the 

 House would never consent to its renewal. It 

 was made by the Administration and it was 

 ratified by the Senate, but it was never sub- 

 mitted to the House of Representatives a second 

 time. 



" It released the revenues of the Government 

 without consulting that branch of Congress to 

 which the Constitution especially confides that 

 subject. When that treaty was made the sec- 

 ond time and ratified by the Senate and put into 

 operation, I introduced a resolution and had it 

 referred to the Judiciary Committee of the 

 House of Representatives, of which J. Randolph 

 Tucker, of Virginia, was chairman, to inquire 

 whether it was competent for the President of 

 the United States and the Senate of the United 

 States to negotiate a treaty releasing the reve- 

 nues of the Government without the consent of 

 the House of Representatives. 



"If I remember aright, that committee re- 

 ported unanimously that they had no such 

 power. I know that was the report of the ma- 

 jority, a very able report, made by Mr. Tucker, 

 one of the ablest lawyers in the United States. 



" Mr. President, we have released over $50,- 

 000,000, taken out of the pockets of the people 

 of the United States and given to the corpora- 

 tions which dominate those islands; and we are 

 now proposing to continue that business of de- 

 pleting the pockets of the people of the United 

 States of $5,000,000 a year and placing it in the 

 pockets of the corporations that control the 

 sugar lands of the Hawaiian Islands. They are 

 owned, as I iinderstand, by the sugar trust of 

 the United States. 



" I am glad to have the opportunity to vote to 

 terminate this treaty, and to take back and keep 

 in the pockets of the people of the United States 

 the $5,000,000 a year which we are taking out 

 and giving to the Hawaiian sugar producers. 



" I see no earthly reason for a continuance of 

 this treaty. It is simply a bounty of $5,000,000 

 which we' are giving out of the pockets of our 



