CONGKESS. (THE WAR REVENUE LAW.) 



169 



poor must fight the battles of the country, and the 

 men with vast incomes should help to pay, accord- 

 ing to their ability at least, the expenses of the war.' 

 But our friends on the other side say we must not 

 insert the income-tax law of 1894 in this bill, be- 

 cause the Supreme Court has decided that act un- 

 constitutional. We have a Very distinct recollection 

 of the history of that decision. 



" The court stood 5 to 4 against the constitu- 

 tionality of the law after one of the judges had 

 mysteriously reversed his former decision. That 

 judge has not to this day given the reasons for his 

 change of opinion. Who knows what he might do 

 if the question should come up again ? In time of 

 war men are likely to act differently than in time 

 of peace 1 They are more likely to be guided by 

 patriotism than by partisanism, more influenced by a 

 sense of justice than by prejudice or selfish motives. 



" Former courts have decided an income-tax law 

 constitutional. One court only has decided it un- 

 constitutional. In the minds of the people the 

 question is not permanently settled, and it never 

 will be settled until it is settled right. 



" The gentleman from Maine tells us if we pass 

 an income-tax bill we may become entangled in 

 lawsuits and the Government will not get the reve- 

 nue which it needs. Can it be that wealthy Ameri- 

 cans are less patriotic than the Spaniards? Wealthy 

 Spaniards at home and abroad are making large vol- 

 untary contributions for the support of their Gov- 

 ernment. 



" Would the gentleman from Maine have us be- 

 lieve that our own citizens, who have made their 

 millions at the mercy of the masses, would resist 

 the authority of the Government to collect taxes 

 that are just and equitable? Does he believe that 

 the trusts and combines that have been so well 

 cared for by his tariff law would refuse to bear 

 their share of the burdens of this war? What a 

 reflection upon the patriotism of American mil- 

 lionaires ! 



" We on this side have been charged with playing 

 for partisan ends. Let us see where partisanship 

 has been exhibited. This bill was trained exclu- 

 sively by Republican members of the Ways and 

 Means Committee. The Democratic members were 

 not invited to participate in the work of drafting 

 the bill. They were not notified even when com- 

 mittee meetings were to be held. After the bill 

 was prepared, the Democratic members of the com- 

 mittee were called in to hear it read, but were not 

 given an opportunity to effect any changes. 



l ' The bill is a purely Republican measure. The 



evident intention of the majority is to railroad it 



through this House in the shape in which it was 



brought here. What consistency, then, is there in 



charging this side with partisanship when we make 



easonable efforts to eliminate infamous proposi- 



ions of the bill and insert popular provisions? 



' I believe that this bill has been framed for more 

 purposes than the chairman of the committee has 

 stated. It is well known that under the Dingley 

 tariff law there is a deficit of $60,000,000, exclusive 

 of the $54,000.000 received from the sale of the 

 Pacific railroads. 



" The Government can not depend upon the sale 

 of more railroads to even up the growing deficit 

 under the present tariff act. Hence the gentleman 

 from Maine has taken advantage of the present 

 emergency to re-enforce his tariff law. The com- 

 mittee has also increased the taxes on certain arti- 

 cles, from doing which they were prevented last 

 year by a conspicuous Republican from Ohio, with 

 the view that these rates shall be permanent. The 

 most outrageous provision of the bill is the bond 

 feature. That any party should designedly take 

 advantage of the present crisis to place upon the 



American people $500,000,000 more of interest- 

 bearing indebtedness is criminal. 



" There is absolutely no necessity for a bond issue 

 at this period of the situation. It is within the 

 powers of Congress to provide all the revenue 

 needed without issuing bonds. Let us set about 

 to do that. It seems to me that the very persons 

 who were working to consummate a bond deal be- 

 fore this Government was allowed to take any 

 action upon this Cuban question are now the ones 

 who are determined to place a bond provision in 

 this revenue bill. 



"It is unfortunate that there is an element in 

 this country who believe a great public debt is a 

 great public blessing. 



" I rejoice that on so many emergency measures 

 brought in here in the last three months the two 

 sides of this House have been able to unite so thor- 

 oughly. I wish this revenue bill was in such a 

 shape that we on this side could consistently and 

 conscientiously support it. Our opposition to it is 

 not that we do not want to provide the funds to 

 carry on the war. We believe there is a common 

 ground upon which the parties in this House could 

 and should meet. The best interests of our nation 

 demand it. 



"The propositions offered by the minority are 

 reasonable, sensible, and popular. First, let us 

 provide for an income tax. Then coin the silver 

 bullion in the Treasury or issue silver certificates in 

 lieu theref, provide for an increase of Treasury 

 notes on the credit of the Government, and, if 

 deemed necessary, levy moderate internal-revenue 

 taxes on articles of voluntary consumption. A 

 revenue bill containing these provisions would give 

 us all the revenue we need to defeat a nation de- 

 crepit and despised." 



All attempts to amend the measure on the vital 

 points urged by its opponents failed. April 29 Mr. 

 Bland, of Missouri, moved that the bill be recom- 

 mitted, with instructions to the committee to report 

 it with an amendment at the close, which was a de- 

 tailed provision for an income tax. The motion 

 failed by the following vote: 



YEAS Adamson, Bailey, Baker of Illinois, Ball, 

 Bankhead, Barlow, Bartholdt, Bartlett. Bell, Benner 

 of Pennsylvania, Benton, Berry, Bland, Bodine. 

 Botkin, Bradley, Brantley, Brenner of Ohio, Brewer, 

 Bromwell, Broussard, Brucker, Brundidge, Burke, 

 Carmack, Castle, Catchings, Clardy, Clark of Mis- 

 souri, Clayton, Cochran of Missouri, Cooney, Cooper 

 of Texas, Cowherd, Cox, Cummings. Davey, Davis, 

 De Armond, De Graffenreid, De Vries, Dinsmore, 

 Dockery, Driggs, Elliott, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, 

 Fleming, Fowler of North Carolina, Fox, Gaines, 

 Greene, Griffith. Griggs, Gunn, Handy, Hartman, 

 Hay. Henry of Mississippi, Henry of Texas, Howard 

 of Georgia. Hunter, Johnson of Indiana, Jones of 

 Virginia, Jones of Washington. King, Kitchin, Kle- 

 berg, Knowles, Lamb, Lanham, Latimer, Lentz, 

 Lester, Lewis of Georgia, Lewis of Washington, 

 Little, Livingston, Lloyd, Love, McClellan, McCor- 

 inick, McCulloch, McDowell, McEwan, McMillin, 

 McRae, Maddox, Maguire, Maxwell. Meyer of Louis- 

 iana, Miers of Indiana. Moon, Newlands, Norton of 

 Ohio, Norton of South Carolina, Ogden, Osborne, 

 Otey, Peters. Pierce of Tennessee, Richardson, Ridg- 

 ely, Rixey, Robb, Robertson of Louisiana, Robinson 

 of Indiana, Savers, Settle. Shafroth, Shuford, Simp- 

 son, Sims, Slayden, Smith of Kentucky, Sparkman, 

 Stephens of Texas, Stokes, Strowd of North Caro- 

 lina, Sullivan, Sulzer, Swanson, Talbert, Taylor of 

 Alabama. Thorp, Underwood, Vandiver. Vehslage, 

 Vincent, Wheeler of Alabama, Wheeler of Kentucky, 

 White of Illinois, Wilson, Zenor 134. 



NAYS Acheson, Adams, Aldrich. Alexander, Ar- 

 nold, Babcock, Baker of Maryland, Barham, Barney, 



