tant feature of the bill. In order to guard against fraud the bill provides that every person having an income of more than $3,500 shall make a return under oath, but no tax is collected unless the net income exceeds $4,000. The bill also provides severe penalties to restrain the tax-collector from disclosing any information gained from the returns made by citizens.

And now, Mr. Chairman, let us consider the objections which have been made. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Bartlett] who addressed the House this forenoon, spent some time in trying to convince us that, while the Supreme Court had without dissent affirmed the constitutionality of an income tax, yet it might at some future time reverse the decision, and that, therefore, this bill ought to be rejected. This question has been settled. beyond controversy. The principle has come before the court on several occasions, and the decisions have always sustained the constitutionality of the income tax. [Hylton vs. United States, 3 Dall., 171; Deasie Bank vs. Fenno, 8 Wall., 533; Scholey vs. Rew, 23. Wall., 331; Pacific Insurance Company vs. Soule, 7 Wall., 433.]

In Springer vs. United States [102 United States, 586] the question was directly raised upon the law in force from 1863 to 1873, and the court held that the income tax as then collected was not a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore need not be apportioned among the states according to their population.

But gentlemen have denounced the income tax as class legislation, because it will affect more people in one section of the country than in another. Because the wealth of the country is, to a large extent, centered in certain cities and states does not make a bill sectional which imposes a tax in proportion to wealth. If New York and Massachusetts pay more tax under this law than other states, it will be because they have more taxable incomes within their borders. And why should not those sections pay most which enjoy most?

The census shows that the population of Massachusetts increased less than half a million between 1880 and 1890, while the assessed value of her property increased more than half a billion during the same period. The population

of New York increased about 900,000 between 1880 and 1890, while the assessed value of the property increased more than $1,100,000,000. On the other hand, while the population of Iowa and Kansas combined increased more than 700,000, their assessed valuation increased only a little more than $300,000,000. This bill is not in the line of class legislation, nor can it be regarded as legislation against a section, for the rate of taxation is the same on every income over $4,000, whether its possessor lives upon the Atlantic coast, in the Mississippi Valley, or on the Pacific slope. I only hope that we may in the future have more farmers in the agricultural districts whose incomes are large enough to tax. [Applause.]

But the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cockran] has denounced as unjust the principle underlying this tax. It is hardly necessary to read authorities to the House. There

is no more just tax upon the statute books than the income tax, nor can any tax be proposed which is more equitable; and the principle is sustained by the most distinguished writers on political economy.

Adam Smith says:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute to the support of the government, as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.

The income tax is the only one which really fulfils this requirement. But it is said that we single out some person with a large income and make him pay more than his share. And let me call attention here to a fatal mistake made by the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Cockran]. You who listened to his speech would have thought that the income tax was the only federal tax proposed; you would have supposed that it was the object of this bill to collect the entire revenue from an income tax. The gentleman forgets that the pending tariff bill will collect upon imports more than one hundred and twenty millions of dollars-nearly ten times as much as we propose to collect from the individual income tax. Everybody knows that a

tax upon consumption is an unequal tax, and that the poor man by means of it pays far out of proportion to the income which he enjoys.

I read the other day in the New York "World"-and I gladly join in ascribing praise to that great daily for its courageous fight upon this subject in behalf of the common people-a description of the home of the richest woman in the United States. She owns property estimated at $60,000,000, and enjoys an income which can scarcely be less than $3,000,000, yet she lives at a cheap boarding-house, and only spends a few hundred dollars a year. That woman, under your indirect system of taxation, does not pay as much toward the support of the Federal government as a laboring man whose income of $500 is spent upon his family. [Applause.]

Why, sir, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cockran] said that the poor are opposed to this tax because they do not want to be deprived of participation in it, and that taxation instead of being a sign of servitude is a badge of freedom. If taxation is a badge of freedom, let me assure my friend that the poor people of this country are covered all over with the insignia of freemen. [Applause.]

Notwithstanding the exemption proposed by this bill, the people whose incomes are less than $4,000 will still contribute far more than their just share to the support of the government. The gentleman says that he opposes this tax in the interest of the poor! Oh, sirs, is it not enough to betray the cause of the poor-must it be done with a kiss? [Applause.]

Would it not be fairer for the gentleman to fling his burnished lance full in the face of the toiler, and not plead for the great fortunes of this country under cover of the poor man's name? [Applause.] The gentleman also tells us that the rich will welcome this tax as a means of securing greater power. Let me call your attention to the resolutions passed by the New York Chamber of Commerce. I wonder how many poor men have membership in that body! Here are the resolutions passed at a special meeting called for the purpose. The newspaper account says:—

Resolutions were adopted declaring "the proposal to impose an income tax is unwise, unpolitic, and unjust for the following reasons:—